From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 1 00:07:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:07:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Rubensohl [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jeff Rubens, The Bridge World June 2009 Editorial: [big snip] "There are many places in the Laws where an R.A. may, as in the case just shown, accept a default or go its own way (or perhaps choose from a list of stated alternatives). In our view, some of these possible choices are horrific; but even if all were universally deemed satisfactory, their existence would nonetheless put paid to the notion that bridge is played everywhere under uniform rules. In the matter of method allowability, it is reasonable, sometimes necessary, to allow for variation - by level of tournament, by player experience, by length of contest, by number of boards per round, by time for preparation, and by what approaches are locally common and uncommon. But elsewhere in the Laws we need uniform rules and procedures. If a player must study routine matters such as when to call the director and when to check the opponents' system card, the game has become inappropriately fragmented." 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 henk at ripe.net Wed Jul 1 01:01:01 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: <200906302301.n5UN11dm016874@dog.ripe.net> (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From henk at ripe.net Wed Jul 1 09:34:48 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:34:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <200907010734.n617YmMd006044@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for June 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 76 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 45 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 36 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 26 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 23 ehaa (at) starpower.net 17 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 14 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 13 blml (at) arcor.de 10 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 9 adam (at) irvine.com 8 swillner (at) nhcc.net 7 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 7 adam (at) tameware.com 7 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 6 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 5 svenpran (at) online.no 5 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 3 tedying (at) yahoo.com 3 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 3 gampas (at) aol.com 3 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 2 karel (at) esatclear.ie 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 2 blml (at) bridgescore.de 2 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 2 Gampas (at) aol.com 1 wmevius (at) hotmail.com 1 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com 1 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 1 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 1 lapinjatka (at) jldata.fi 1 geller (at) nifty.com 1 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jul 1 12:55:07 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:55:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <71E3857E-BBA7-45D0-AE10-71F20BF0EE77@btinternet.com> Latest news is that John is back at home and bored, so visitors are as welcome as ever. Maxine is in the process of arranging his first bridge game for next week. Since he takes a while to recognise the cards it won't be a fast affair, but she's organised suitably slow opponents for this first game. Anyone else who'd like to offer to arrange for two or three players to go over to their house for a few hands of unhurried therapeutic bridge should get in touch with Maxine (through me if necessary). Gordon Rainsford On 21 May 2009, at 13:13, GORDON RAINSFORD wrote: > > I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not > know that John (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and > is in the Royal London Hospital. His condition has improved over > the last few days and he can now talk a bit, but tires easily and > is not well enough for many visitors. However I'm sure he'll > welcome messages, either directly to his email address for when > he's well enough to access them, or here on the list which I'll > undertake to get passed on and read out to him. > > Gordon Rainsford > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jul 1 18:36:02 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:36:02 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <71E3857E-BBA7-45D0-AE10-71F20BF0EE77@btinternet.com> Message-ID: From: "Gordon Rainsford" > Latest news is that John is back at home and bored, so visitors > are > as welcome as ever. Maxine is in the process of arranging his > first > bridge game for next week. > Please pass on to John my thanks for his very extensive help in my efforts to understand duplicate bridge movements better, and to make them better in ACBL-land (a futile effort). I was brain-injured by a severe concussion 8 years ago. After some years of blundering at the bridge table, the brain seems to have compensated for the most part. The brain's ability to overcome damage is very impressive, and I wish John well in his coming rehab. Plug away, John, you can do it! Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jul 1 19:01:23 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:01:23 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Rubensohl [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <67DB6E70EB084A6D97EC24C62D5FDBE1@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills: > > Jeff Rubens, The Bridge World June 2009 Editorial: > > [big snip] > > "There are many places in the Laws where an R.A. may, as in the > case just shown, accept a default or go its own way (or perhaps > choose from a list of stated alternatives). In our view, some > of these possible choices are horrific; but even if all were > universally deemed satisfactory, their existence would > nonetheless put paid to the notion that bridge is played > everywhere under uniform rules. In the matter of method > allowability, it is reasonable, sometimes necessary, to allow > for variation - by level of tournament, by player experience, > by length of contest, by number of boards per round, by time > for preparation, and by what approaches are locally common and > uncommon. But elsewhere in the Laws we need uniform rules and > procedures. If a player must study routine matters such as when > to call the director and when to check the opponents' system > card, the game has become inappropriately fragmented." Players learn dozens of conventions and their complex components, yet can't learn when to call the Director in routine matters. No excuse for that. The system card's purpose is to communicate partnership agreements, not to document them for the benefit of the partnership. Opponents should always check the opponents' system card before questioning the auction. It is intolerable that they can force opponents to create UI by making them answer unnecessary questions. I tell partners to do what I do. When an opponent who can read without difficulty asks a question whose answer is clearly shown on the convention card, I just hand them the card. They will usually refuse to read it, however, insisting on an oral response that could lead to UI difficulties for my current partnerships. Shouild I ask partners to go get a drink of water while I answer? Or put their hands over their ears and close their eyes? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com . From adam at tameware.com Wed Jul 1 23:50:41 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 17:50:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net> References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > Even if you don't adjust for the second revoke under L64C, surely you > have to do so under L23: declarer "could have known...." ?And on a > philosophical basis, why anyone would want a player who revokes twice to > get more tricks than one who revokes only once is... um... a bit hard to > understand. "Surely" may be an overbid. L23 is now part of Chapter V - The Auction. Did the drafting committee intend for it to apply to the play also? I personally would like it to apply to the play, but as is I'm not sure it can. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 2 01:03:38 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:03:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 100% of Nothing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1966): Miles Gloriosus: Oh, her bridal bower becomes a burial bier of bitter bereavement! Pseudolus: Very good! Can you say "Titus the tailor told ten tall tales to Titania the titmouse"? Bidding Forum, Australian Bridge, August 1984: Imps Dlr: South Vul: Both WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1S 2H 3D (1) Pass ? (1) 100% forcing You, South, hold: AJ754 KQJT9 85 6 What call do you make? A funny thing happened on the way to the Bidding Forum. Senator Jim Borin (Bermuda Bowl bronze medalist): "Pass. Provided that I am the viewtaker in this partnership." Emperor Keith McNeil: "Believe me, after this effort, you are the only viewtaker, comprising as of now a team-of-one." Senator Sami Kehela (Bermuda Bowl silver medalist): "Pass. I do this every leap year. This is leap year, isn't it?" Emperor Keith McNeil: "Yep, sure is, and fortunately it lets you make the proposals - for new teammates, that is." Senator Terence Reese (Bermuda Bowl gold medalist): "Pass. Tant pis if 3D is forcing. It doesn't force me. Who knows? West might come again." Emperor Keith McNeil: "Halley's Comet will come again before West does (and the bladder problems of your French aunt are irrelevant to our readers)." Two other senators also voted for Pass, which suggests that it might be a Logical Alternative. However, the definition of Logical Alternative in Law 16B1(b) includes this criterion: "...using the methods of the partnership...". But is "using" necessarily synonymous with "obeying"??? 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 Jul 2 01:20:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:20:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 23 (was Ambiguity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky asserted: >"Surely" may be an overbid. L23 is now part of Chapter V - The >Auction. Did the drafting committee intend for it to apply to >the play also? I personally would like it to apply to the play, >but as is I'm not sure it can. Richard Hills refutes: It is only in the mistranslated ACBL version of the 2007 Lawbook that Law 23 is part of "Chapter V - The Auction". The Drafting Committee deliberately chose to delete Chapters and Sections from the 2007 edition of The Fabulous Lawbook. So the 2007 Law 23 is an amalgamation and rewording of the 1997 Law 23 with the 1997 Law 72B1, applicable to both the auction and also the play. Indeed, if Adam Wildavsky had bothered to Read The Fabulous Law Book, Adam would have observed that the title of the 1997 Law 23 was the narrow "Damaging Enforced Pass", but the title of the 2007 Law 23 is the broad "Awareness of Potential Damage". 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 Jul 2 07:03:15 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:03:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c9f958$f8814730$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Marvin French: >...I was brain-injured by a severe concussion 8 years ago. After >some years of blundering at the bridge table, the brain seems to >have compensated for the most part... Richard Hills: I have had some decades of blundering at the bridge table, but without the excuse of a severe concussion. For example, on Tuesday night I was defending 3NT. Dummy held ATxxx of hearts, and dummy's last side entry had just been knocked out. Declarer now led a low heart from dummy. Sitting on dummy's left I held Kx of hearts, and I reasoned that if declarer held Q9x of hearts I could block the suit by finding the Expert Play of an in-tempo Second Hand Low, since then declarer would likely misguess by finessing the nine. Alas, I was the Unlucky Expert. Not only did declarer hold a mere Qx of hearts, and not only was the Queen declarer's ninth trick, but also Mrs Guggenheim would have defeated the contract by rising with the King and returning partner's suit, permitting pard to cash out for two undertricks. 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 Tim West-Meads (June 2002): >>Disclosure is primarily a matter for the SO, whether it should >>be by means of CC/Alert/answers to questions varies >>considerably. However it certainly isn't true that you are >>playing a two-way convention (unless you have built in a >>structure to cater to forgets). The fact that something is >>(quite rightly) disclosable doesn't make it a matter of >>convention. >> >>Just describe it as it is "We play it as X, but partner often >>forgets after his second pint." David Burn (June 2002): >And what use is that? Do I have to discuss with partner before >the round begins whether we are going to treat the opponents' >two-suited bids as having been remembered or as having been >forgotten? There appears to be a belief that it is enough to >alert and tell the opponents that your side often forgets >convention X - but that is no help at all when a sequence arises >in which convention X may or may not be in use. Suppose the >auction begins (1D) 3C and I receive the West-Meads Patent Non- >Explanation. How will I or my partner know what my bid of 3H >(natural if 3C is clubs, clubs if 3C is majors) means? Is it to >be considered that, in the face of the W-MPN-E, my own side may >be guilty of giving misinformation should partner describe my 3H >as clubs when I in fact have hearts? > >If you are in the habit of having either clubs or the majors for >a 3C overcall of 1D, then it certainly *is* true that you are by >(implicit) agreement playing a 3C overcall of 1D as clubs or the >majors, and you must certainly tell the opponents this. 2007 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." David Burn (June 2002): >Of course, such a convention may not be legal, in which case you >must stop playing it. 2007 Law 40B5: "When a side is damaged by an opponent's use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jul 2 09:38:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:38:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu><4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net> <694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > Even if you don't adjust for the second revoke under L64C, surely you have to do so under L23: declarer "could have known...." And on a philosophical basis, why anyone would want a player who revokes twice to get more tricks than one who revokes only once is ... um... a bit hard to understand. > "Surely" may be an overbid. L23 is now part of Chapter V - The Auction. Did the drafting committee intend for it to apply to the play also? I personally would like it to apply to the play, but as is I'm not sure it can. ............................................................................................. +=+ I do not understand what Adam is talking about. In the 2007 Law Book there are no chapters. The drafting committee discontinued segmentation of the laws into chapters etc. Law 23 applies to irregularities whether in the auction or the play. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jul 2 10:02:10 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:02:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu><4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net> <694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com> <001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On 2 Jul 2009, at 08:38, Grattan wrote: > > +=+ I do not understand what Adam is talking about. > In the 2007 Law Book there are no chapters. The > drafting committee discontinued segmentation of the laws > into chapters etc. Law 23 applies to irregularities whether > in the auction or the play. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I'm happy enough that they removed the chapters. Unfortunately they also removed the Contents pages as well, giving us as a poor substitute the new Index. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090702/62da865b/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 2 10:20:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:20:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Laws 21 and 47B. Message-ID: <008701c9faee$1bca6820$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott<4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net><694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com><001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <009601c9faf0$613e55e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu><4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net><694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com><001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> <009601c9faf0$613e55e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On 2 Jul 2009, at 09:37, Grattan wrote: > > +=+ While the Introduction and Definitions stand part > of the laws the Index is not similarly stated to be.. It exists > as a street guide to where buildings may be found without > an exhaustive listing of their contents. If in consequence, > Gordon, you are working harder for your supper I can offer > sympathy but not assistance. > ~ G ~ +=+ Unfortunately if I don't know the name of the house I seek, or I simply wish to browse street by street, your guide is of no help. Far more useful would be a list of houses by street than an index of houses by name. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090702/3ecb9aab/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 2 15:11:09 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:11:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu><4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net> <694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com> <001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <8BCFF998-B2D1-4168-A6CB-A6EF2C19CC8B@starpower.net> On Jul 2, 2009, at 3:38 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > Steve Willner wrote: >> > Even if you don't adjust for the second revoke under > L64C, surely you have to do so under L23: declarer > "could have known...." And on a philosophical basis, > why anyone would want a player who revokes twice > to get more tricks than one who revokes only once is > ... um... a bit hard to understand. >> > "Surely" may be an overbid. L23 is now part of > Chapter V - The Auction. Did the drafting committee > intend for it to apply to the play also? I personally > would like it to apply to the play, but as is I'm not > sure it can. > ...................................................................... > ....................... > +=+ I do not understand what Adam is talking about. > In the 2007 Law Book there are no chapters. The > drafting committee discontinued segmentation of the laws > into chapters etc. Law 23 applies to irregularities whether > in the auction or the play. This is news to me, as well as to Steve. Apparently nobody told the ACBL. The "2008 North American Edition" of TFLB, which is the Law in ACBL-land, has the identical organization of the laws into chapters, parts and sections as did the 1997 edition. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jul 2 17:53:16 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:53:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] filling holes Message-ID: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Suppose my partner and I change our system, agreeing that a 1NT opening showed exactly 16 HCP, rather than our usual 15-17. Now I pick up a balanced 15 HCP, realize I have no way to show my hand, and open 1NT. My partner describes this to the opponent as 16 HCP. Is this an infraction? When they hear 16 HCP, my opponents might think that my 1NT rebid (after opening 1 of a minor) might show 12-15. But it doesn't, that is still 12-14. So, from a knowledge of our system, they might be able to infer that I might open 1NT (even if my partner can't figure that out). From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 2 18:05:44 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:05:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] filling holes In-Reply-To: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <003d01c9fb2e$f7a6f030$e6f4d090$@nl> Players who agree a system with obvious holes should realize in advance that they will be forced to inexactly describe hands. That knowledge is easier for them than for the opponents, so in my opinion the onus is on them to describe their bids correctly. In this case an explanation 16 HCP is inadequate, since you already (should) know partner will upgrade 15's or downgrade 17's to fit the system. There are of course less obvious examples, where players only find out after three years of playing a system that it contains a hole. In that case I still think that if opponents are damaged by their failure to anticipate their hole they are responsible, but they would have a lot more sympathy from me than in this particular case. Hans van Staveren -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of rfrick at rfrick.info Sent: donderdag 2 juli 2009 17:53 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] filling holes Suppose my partner and I change our system, agreeing that a 1NT opening showed exactly 16 HCP, rather than our usual 15-17. Now I pick up a balanced 15 HCP, realize I have no way to show my hand, and open 1NT. My partner describes this to the opponent as 16 HCP. Is this an infraction? When they hear 16 HCP, my opponents might think that my 1NT rebid (after opening 1 of a minor) might show 12-15. But it doesn't, that is still 12-14. So, from a knowledge of our system, they might be able to infer that I might open 1NT (even if my partner can't figure that out). _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jul 2 18:06:25 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (GORDON RAINSFORD) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:06:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <8BCFF998-B2D1-4168-A6CB-A6EF2C19CC8B@starpower.net> References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu><4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net> <694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com> <001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> <8BCFF998-B2D1-4168-A6CB-A6EF2C19CC8B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <436649.40242.qm@web86710.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >This is news to me, as well as to Steve.? Apparently nobody told the? >ACBL. The "2008 North American Edition" of TFLB, which is the Law in? >ACBL-land, has the identical organization of the laws into chapters,? >parts and sections as did the 1997 edition. > >Eric Landau I wonder if anyone told you ACBL members that the ACBL also removed the following sentence from the preface to the 2007 Laws: "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them." ? This does seem to provide an interesting insight into their own view of their TDs. ? Gordon Rainsford? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 2 17:06:46 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:06:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu><4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net><694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com><001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> <8BCFF998-B2D1-4168-A6CB-A6EF2C19CC8B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c9fb3a$dfcbcc40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > On Jul 2, 2009, at 3:38 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Adam Wildavsky" >> >> Steve Willner wrote: >>> >> Even if you don't adjust for the second revoke under >> L64C, surely you have to do so under L23: declarer >> "could have known...." And on a philosophical basis, >> why anyone would want a player who revokes twice >> to get more tricks than one who revokes only once is >> ... um... a bit hard to understand. >>> >> "Surely" may be an overbid. L23 is now part of >> Chapter V - The Auction. Did the drafting committee >> intend for it to apply to the play also? I personally >> would like it to apply to the play, but as is I'm not >> sure it can. >> ...................................................................... >> ....................... >> +=+ I do not understand what Adam is talking about. >> In the 2007 Law Book there are no chapters. The >> drafting committee discontinued segmentation of the laws >> into chapters etc. Law 23 applies to irregularities whether >> in the auction or the play. > > This is news to me, as well as to Steve. Apparently > nobody told the ACBL. The "2008 North American > Edition" of TFLB, which is the Law in ACBL-land, has > the identical organization of the laws into chapters, parts > and sections as did the 1997 edition. > +=+ From my point of view The Laws of Duplicate Bridge are what was presented by the drafting committee, approved by the Laws Committee and ratified by the Executive Council, of the WBF. Anything not conforming to this I regard as aberrant. The ACBL was represented strongly of course in all three of those areas. The imprint of the Portland Club edition of the 2007 laws states that they are Promulgated by the World Bridge Federation and approved by The WBF Laws Committee The Portland Club European Bridge League The American Contract Bridge League. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 2 22:17:58 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:17:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] filling holes In-Reply-To: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:53 AM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > Suppose my partner and I change our system, agreeing that a 1NT > opening > showed exactly 16 HCP, rather than our usual 15-17. Now I pick up a > balanced 15 HCP, realize I have no way to show my hand, and open > 1NT. My > partner describes this to the opponent as 16 HCP. > > Is this an infraction? When they hear 16 HCP, my opponents might think > that my 1NT rebid (after opening 1 of a minor) might show 12-15. > But it > doesn't, that is still 12-14. So, from a knowledge of our system, they > might be able to infer that I might open 1NT (even if my partner can't > figure that out). Sounds like an infraction to me. Bob and his partner are not new to bridge. They have been playing a system with 12-14 and 15-17 1NT rebid and opening bid ranges, presumably long enough to be familiar with it. So if they decide to change the 1NT opening to 16 exactly, and simultaneously decide not to define any way to show a balanced 15-count, they must realize, whether they discuss it explicitly or not, that there is an unfilled hole, and that the only sensible way to plug it will be to treat their 15-counts as either good 14s or light 16s. In effect, I am applying a "reasonable man" test to Bob's contention that it never occurred to him that he would ever again have to deal with a balanced 15-count until he actually picked one up, and rejecting it. Convention card notwithstanding, he and his partner were in fact playing 12-15 and 15-16 (actually 15-17, with the next range 17-something), should have known it, and should have described it as such. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 2 22:28:10 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:28:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <000201c9fb3a$dfcbcc40$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu><4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net><694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com><001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> <8BCFF998-B2D1-4168-A6CB-A6EF2C19CC8B@starpower.net> <000201c9fb3a$dfcbcc40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <7368BCFE-1ECF-44F4-8327-299FAFA0A5AE@starpower.net> On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" >> >> This is news to me, as well as to Steve. Apparently >> nobody told the ACBL. The "2008 North American >> Edition" of TFLB, which is the Law in ACBL-land, has >> the identical organization of the laws into chapters, parts >> and sections as did the 1997 edition. > > +=+ From my point of view The Laws of Duplicate Bridge > are what was presented by the drafting committee, approved > by the Laws Committee and ratified by the Executive Council, > of the WBF. Anything not conforming to this I regard as > aberrant. The ACBL was represented strongly of course in > all three of those areas. > The imprint of the Portland Club edition of the > 2007 laws states that they are > Promulgated by the World Bridge Federation > and approved by > The WBF Laws Committee > The Portland Club > European Bridge League > The American Contract Bridge League. The title page of the 2008 "North American Edition" of "Laws of Duplicate Bridge", as copyrighted by the ACBL, states that they are "promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the American Contract Bridge League". The Preface notes that they are "promulgated in the remainder of the world [sic] by the WBF". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jul 2 23:50:02 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:50:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <009601c9faf0$613e55e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu><4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net><694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com><001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> <009601c9faf0$613e55e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A4D2B8A.7000405@aol.com> I seem to remember that someone offered an index of the laws (table of contents) that you could simply place in your TBR. But when I searched for it I could only find one in German. Has no such index in English been made available? If not and there is sufficient interest I could translate it and post it on blml. But you'd have to indicate interest and give me a little time. JE Grattan schrieb: > > > Grattan Endicott > also > ********************************** > "The searcher's eye not seldom > finds more than he wished to find." > [Gotthold Lessing, 1779] > ********************************** > > +=+ While the Introduction and Definitions stand part > of the laws the Index is not similarly stated to be.. It exists > as a street guide to where buildings may be found without > an exhaustive listing of their contents. If in consequence, > Gordon, you are working harder for your supper I can offer > sympathy but not assistance. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gordon Rainsford > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:02 AM > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > > On 2 Jul 2009, at 08:38, Grattan wrote: >> >> +=+ I do not understand what Adam is talking about. >> In the 2007 Law Book there are no chapters. The >> drafting committee discontinued segmentation of the laws >> into chapters etc. Law 23 applies to irregularities whether >> in the auction or the play. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I'm happy enough that they removed the chapters. Unfortunately > they also removed the Contents pages as well, giving us as a poor > substitute the new Index. > > Gordon Rainsford > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 3 01:43:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:43:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] filing wholes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003d01c9fb2e$f7a6f030$e6f4d090$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: [snip] >There are of course less obvious examples, where players only >find out after three years of playing a system that it contains >a hole. In that case I still think that if opponents are >damaged by their failure to anticipate their hole they are >responsible, [snip] Richard Hills: A Melbourne "Futile Willie" designed his home-grown system which was a Frankenstein combination of Acol and Precision. Futile Willie's one-level opening bids were 1NT 12-14 hcp; 1S, 1H and 1D promising 4-card suits; 1C 16+ hcp and artificial. He was unaware that he had filed a system card which was wholly holey, but perpendicular pronoun pluperfect pedantry instantly noticed that if: (a) Futile Willie held exactly 15 hcp with exactly 3-3-3-4 shape as dealer then (b) Futile Willie's hand was unbiddable, so his Frankenstein system would require Willie to pass. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jul 3 03:13:35 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:13:35 -0700 Subject: [BLML] filing wholes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <9A3E96AE9E6D4FC1A4B0A7B3F41D2E74@MARVLAPTOP> Danny Kleinman had some holes in the system he insisted on playing in Individual championships during the early 60s, nearly half of which he would win. He told his partners he only opened five-card majors and four-card minors.Also, he refused to play Blackwood, which prevented the Blackwood forays by partners who held 17-19 HCP. He was lying, of course, about the suit lengths. He just wanted partners to raise a major freely with three and a minor freely with four. When questioned by the few who saw the holes, he said without those lengths he would open 1NT. "What if you lack the strength for that?" "It never seems to happen." Danny claims Individuals were dropped from schedules because he won so many. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 3 04:20:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:20:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Claim jumping [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: W.R. Inge (1860-1954), "The Gloomy Dean": "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion." Herman De Wael, June 2002: >>>>>The AC did in fact award 4 tricks to defender, and 8 >>>>>tricks to declarer (the thirteenth trick was for the >>>>>director)... David Stevenson, June 2002: >>>>...For years ACBL ACs have ignored the Laws freely and >>>>done what they feel however illegal. Now, just as ACBL >>>>ACs are learning the laws, EBL ACs are starting to ignore >>>>them. >>>> >>>>The *first* objective of an AC is to apply the laws of >>>>Bridge. Equity should be their next consideration. Grattan Endicott, June 2002: >>>...The appeals committee, acting also as the national >>>authority for the tournament per regulation, considered >>>with the Chief Director the wording of Law 70A. This says >>>positively that the director "adjudicates the result of >>>the board as equitably as possible to both sides". The >>>Chief Director said this was what had been done. There >>>were no doubtful points and the ruling did not involve any >>>failure to do as provided in 70B,C,D,E. >>> Yes, traditionalists may recoil... Jesper Dybdal, June 2002: >>I do! >> >>When, in a claims situation, it seems that the two sides >>only deserve a total of 12 tricks, then it seems very clear >>to me that >>* the ownership of the 13th trick is a "doubtful point", and >>* since "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the >>claimer", the 13th trick must thus go to the non-claiming >>side. David Stevenson, June 2002: >You can swallow us with words, Grattan, but after the efforts >of the last few years by the WBFLC, yourself, and many others >to teach people the Laws, the spectacle of ACs suddenly >running wild and making up new Laws to suit themselves is not >edifying. Richard Hills, July 2009: The wording of the 2007 Law 70A is substantively similar to the wording of the 1997 Law 70A (merely the addition of a few clarifying words about concessions). Ergo, if Grattan Endicott and his fellow National Authority committee members correctly interpreted Law 70A as permitting: (a) 4 tricks to the defenders, (b) 8 tricks to the declarer, and (c) 1 trick to the Director, then that correct interpretation is unaltered by any changes in the 2007 Lawbook, so may therefore be used by current European Directors and current European Appeals Committees. Of course, it is possible that in the intervening years Grattan Endicott has swallowed his words, and that the wild runner now tamely supports the edifying interpretation of Jesper Dybdal. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 3 08:57:19 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:57:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semimonthly semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael Farebrother, September 2002: >According to my computer, the current date is > >Wed Sep 3256 17:19:10 MDT 1993 > >On the internet, it's *always* September. > >(For explanation, see >http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/September-that-never- >ended.html >). Richard Hills, July 2009: Every eight years the Aussie winter nationals are held in Canberra, thus giving me a choice of posting to blml for those two weeks, or actually playing bridge for those two weeks. Which of these two Logical Alternatives is demonstrably suggested? 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 Michael Farebrother, September 2002: [big snip] >The other Game I play (Advanced Squad Leader) and which I have used >as an example here before, does have exceptions - all over the >place. But they're listed and cross-referenced. And they *do* >have a rule that barring an exception, if rules conflict, the >higher-numbered rule takes precedence (E.2). And a rule that >states that for any particular scenario you choose to play, the >designer of that scenario may write rules that supersede the >rulebook (strangely enough, they're called SSRs - scenario special >rules - and are defined in the Index). Why? Because wargamers as >a group are rules junkies - the concept of playing a game where the >players don't have to know the rules is incomprehensible to them. > >As a wargamer :-) I am not happy with this situation. Adam Beneschan, July 2002: The ACBL has over 160,000 members and who knows how many non-members who regularly play in their games; and if they have found themselves unable to make every single one of them happy, that's probably one of the least of their failings. Michael Farebrother, September 2002: >Whether it's an SO "banning" otherwise legal, natural calls by >making them impossible to use, or artfully blue-pencilling other >Laws by creating regulations that are "in conflict with these Laws" >but, since they aren't regulated via L80F, L80F doesn't apply to >them, or any other seemingly illegal action, it should be obvious >to a competent reader of English what the Laws allow and do not >allow. I would like a universal governing body that *would* step >in when certain SOs are going so far out of line with the rest of >the world that it is harming the global game Adam Beneschan, July 2002: Now that I don't see. If there is any way that players in England, or the Netherlands, or Burkina Faso or Bhutan or wherever, have been harmed by the ACBL's tendency to go its own way on certain issues, I will need this explained to me. What is this "harm to the global game" of which you speak? The WBF's failure to be alarmed at the ACBL's actions would indicate that either (1) they don't think the global game is being harmed, or (2) they themselves are incompetent or biased or something, in which case you probably don't want them to start stepping in anyway. Michael Farebrother, September 2002: [big snip] >and when we find out that those Laws will be interpreted to give >those governments as much latitude as possible, well... > >The answer to Ton's "do you think anyone would *do* that with their >power?" is "Hell yeah! Eventually someone stupid enough or crooked >enough or bribed well enough will get in." - at least it is in Zone >II. Adam Beneschan, July 2002: I suppose the WBF, however, is surrounded by some sort of force field, or maybe a layer of custard, that prevents such people from getting in? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jul 3 09:26:59 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:26:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semimonthly semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301c9fbaf$a74c3dd0$f5e4b970$@no> On Behalf Of > richard.hills at immi.gov.au ........... > >(For explanation, see > >http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/September-that-never- > >ended.html > >). Consolidating the URL into one single line and removing all apparently extraneous characters did not help: The link came out "broken" Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 3 10:53:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:53:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Conditions of Contest for Brazil Message-ID: <003301c9fbbb$b1d37050$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <003301c9fbbb$b1d37050$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A4DC9D1.4080909@ripe.net> Grattan wrote: > *From:* Anna Gudge > I have sent this email to BLML but it doesn?t appear yet ? am I doing > something wrong ? Or can you relay it for me ? It looks as if the mail was sent by "AnnaGudge at ecats.co.uk". This person is not subscribed to the list and then the mail was automatically discarded as spam. There is an "anna at ecats.co.uk" on the list. To avoid this from happening again, either post from this address or subscribe as "AnnaGudge at ecats.co.uk". Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From blml at bridgescore.de Fri Jul 3 11:09:02 2009 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:09:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <009601c9faf0$613e55e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu><4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net><694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com><001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> <009601c9faf0$613e55e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A4DCAAE.2030809@bridgescore.de> This still leaves me unenlighted on why the immensely useful list of contents has been dropped. I am sure there must be a reason for this. Christian Grattan schrieb: > +=+ While the Introduction and Definitions stand part > of the laws the Index is not similarly stated to be. It exists > as a street guide to where buildings may be found without > an exhaustive listing of their contents. If in consequence, > Gordon, you are working harder for your supper I can offer > sympathy but not assistance. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gordon Rainsford > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:02 AM > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > > On 2 Jul 2009, at 08:38, Grattan wrote: >> >> +=+ I do not understand what Adam is talking about. >> In the 2007 Law Book there are no chapters. The >> drafting committee discontinued segmentation of the laws >> into chapters etc. Law 23 applies to irregularities whether >> in the auction or the play. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I'm happy enough that they removed the chapters. Unfortunately > they also removed the Contents pages as well, giving us as a poor > substitute the new Index. > > Gordon Rainsford From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 3 12:29:57 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:29:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: World Transnational Open Teams 2009 Message-ID: <000a01c9fbc9$379e0170$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott<4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net><694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com><001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> <009601c9faf0$613e55e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A4DCAAE.2030809@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <000f01c9fbca$a1b72630$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > This still leaves me unenlighted on why the immensely useful list of > contents has been dropped. I am sure there must be a reason for this. > > Christian > +=+ My detailed record of the early discussions and decisions is in a PC that I have now put to one side. It hardly seems worth reconnecting it. However, my recollection is of a suggestion that the Contents page was imprecise and that a detailed Index would better meet the needs. Absence of a Contents page did not excite comment from NBOs and Zones, but perhaps they were more attentive to the laws themselves. ~ G ~ +=+ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Jul 3 13:34:55 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (GORDON RAINSFORD) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:34:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <000f01c9fbca$a1b72630$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu><4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net><694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com><001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> <009601c9faf0$613e55e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A4DCAAE.2030809@bridgescore.de> <000f01c9fbca$a1b72630$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <47294.49509.qm@web86706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Grattan > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Friday, 3 July, 2009 11:40:03 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > my recollection is of a suggestion that > the Contents page was imprecise and that a detailed Index would > better meet the needs. The two fulfil different functions. I must say from experience of using them that the Index does not better meet the needs. I'm happy enough for it to be there, but wish the Contents were still too. So much so that I've gone to the trouble of adapting?the?Contents pages?from the old laws and stick it in every law book I use. Gordon Rainsford From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 3 16:32:35 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:32:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] filling holes In-Reply-To: References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:53 AM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > >> Suppose my partner and I change our system, agreeing that a 1NT >> opening >> showed exactly 16 HCP, rather than our usual 15-17. Now I pick up a >> balanced 15 HCP, realize I have no way to show my hand, and open >> 1NT. My >> partner describes this to the opponent as 16 HCP. >> >> Is this an infraction? When they hear 16 HCP, my opponents might think >> that my 1NT rebid (after opening 1 of a minor) might show 12-15. >> But it >> doesn't, that is still 12-14. So, from a knowledge of our system, they >> might be able to infer that I might open 1NT (even if my partner can't >> figure that out). > > Sounds like an infraction to me. > > Bob and his partner are not new to bridge. They have been playing a > system with 12-14 and 15-17 1NT rebid and opening bid ranges, > presumably long enough to be familiar with it. So if they decide to > change the 1NT opening to 16 exactly, and simultaneously decide not > to define any way to show a balanced 15-count, they must realize, > whether they discuss it explicitly or not, that there is an unfilled > hole, and that the only sensible way to plug it will be to treat > their 15-counts as either good 14s or light 16s. > > In effect, I am applying a "reasonable man" test to Bob's contention > that it never occurred to him that he would ever again have to deal > with a balanced 15-count until he actually picked one up, and > rejecting it. Convention card notwithstanding, he and his partner > were in fact playing 12-15 and 15-16 (actually 15-17, with the next > range 17-something), should have known it, and should have described > it as such. Quick summary: Misinformation based on holes is probably an infraction (Hans, Eric) but accepted as legal in practice (Marvin). Justifications for why it would be an infraction differ. I think it is an L20F1 violation. Doesn't L20F require players to explain the meaning of a bid within their system? For example, a Precision 1D cannot be explained as just an opening hand with no other opening bid, but instead the Precision Players must use their knowledge of the other opening bids to describe the 1D opening in terms of strength and length. I doubt one can find a law that has the director decision depending on whether or not the players knew they had the hole. Similarly, no law will differentiate on size of hole. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 3 17:19:59 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:19:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] filling holes In-Reply-To: <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: On Jul 3, 2009, at 10:32 AM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: >> On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:53 AM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: >> >>> Suppose my partner and I change our system, agreeing that a 1NT >>> opening >>> showed exactly 16 HCP, rather than our usual 15-17. Now I pick up a >>> balanced 15 HCP, realize I have no way to show my hand, and open >>> 1NT. My >>> partner describes this to the opponent as 16 HCP. >>> >>> Is this an infraction? When they hear 16 HCP, my opponents might >>> think >>> that my 1NT rebid (after opening 1 of a minor) might show 12-15. >>> But it >>> doesn't, that is still 12-14. So, from a knowledge of our system, >>> they >>> might be able to infer that I might open 1NT (even if my partner >>> can't >>> figure that out). >> >> Sounds like an infraction to me. >> >> Bob and his partner are not new to bridge. They have been playing a >> system with 12-14 and 15-17 1NT rebid and opening bid ranges, >> presumably long enough to be familiar with it. So if they decide to >> change the 1NT opening to 16 exactly, and simultaneously decide not >> to define any way to show a balanced 15-count, they must realize, >> whether they discuss it explicitly or not, that there is an unfilled >> hole, and that the only sensible way to plug it will be to treat >> their 15-counts as either good 14s or light 16s. >> >> In effect, I am applying a "reasonable man" test to Bob's contention >> that it never occurred to him that he would ever again have to deal >> with a balanced 15-count until he actually picked one up, and >> rejecting it. Convention card notwithstanding, he and his partner >> were in fact playing 12-15 and 15-16 (actually 15-17, with the next >> range 17-something), should have known it, and should have described >> it as such. > > Quick summary: Misinformation based on holes is probably an infraction > (Hans, Eric) but accepted as legal in practice (Marvin). I did not mean to suggest that "misinformation based on holes is probably an infraction" per se. Any system has holes. And the vast majority of those "holes" are sufficiently subtle that it is entirely reasonable to believe that a player might become aware of them only when actually picking up the relevant hand for the first time. That was not, however, the case here (IMO). > Justifications for why it would be an infraction differ. I think it > is an > L20F1 violation. Doesn't L20F require players to explain the > meaning of a > bid within their system? For example, a Precision 1D cannot be > explained > as just an opening hand with no other opening bid, but instead the > Precision Players must use their knowledge of the other opening > bids to > describe the 1D opening in terms of strength and length. The only law needed here is L40A. "Partnership understandings as to the [holes in their] methods... may be reached... implicitly through mutual... awareness... Each partnership has a duty to make available..." > I doubt one can find a law that has the director decision depending on > whether or not the players knew they had the hole. Similarly, no > law will > differentiate on size of hole. The decision doesn't require mind-reading what they "knew", but rather deciding what they may reasonably be expected to know. It depends entirely on whether the hole is "big enough" to create a presumption of "mutual awareness". Recall that my rationale for finding an infraction in Bob's case was, "I am applying a 'reasonable man' test to Bob's contention... and rejecting it." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at bridgescore.de Fri Jul 3 17:22:20 2009 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:22:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <000f01c9fbca$a1b72630$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu><4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net><694eadd40907011450u429e444sb23cf7db5118a8b7@mail.gmail.com><001f01c9fae8$37ac1170$0302a8c0@Mildred> <009601c9faf0$613e55e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A4DCAAE.2030809@bridgescore.de> <000f01c9fbca$a1b72630$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A4E222C.2020100@bridgescore.de> Hi Grattan, the only way for a content page to be imprecise would be to have wrong page numbers or chapter names. This seems like a fixable issue to me. This is the first lawbook (Bridge or otherwise) I am working with that omits the contents page. Regards, Christian Grattan schrieb: > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "The searcher's eye not seldom > finds more than he wished to find." > [Gotthold Lessing, 1779] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian Farwig (BLML)" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:09 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > >> This still leaves me unenlighted on why the immensely useful list of >> contents has been dropped. I am sure there must be a reason for this. >> >> Christian >> > +=+ My detailed record of the early discussions and decisions > is in a PC that I have now put to one side. It hardly seems worth > reconnecting it. However, my recollection is of a suggestion that > the Contents page was imprecise and that a detailed Index would > better meet the needs. Absence of a Contents page did not excite > comment from NBOs and Zones, but perhaps they were more > attentive to the laws themselves. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 3 19:08:32 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:08:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] filling holes In-Reply-To: References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <40519.99.7.154.104.1246640912.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > On Jul 3, 2009, at 10:32 AM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > >>> On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:53 AM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: >>> >>>> Suppose my partner and I change our system, agreeing that a 1NT >>>> opening >>>> showed exactly 16 HCP, rather than our usual 15-17. Now I pick up a >>>> balanced 15 HCP, realize I have no way to show my hand, and open >>>> 1NT. My >>>> partner describes this to the opponent as 16 HCP. >>>> >>>> Is this an infraction? When they hear 16 HCP, my opponents might >>>> think >>>> that my 1NT rebid (after opening 1 of a minor) might show 12-15. >>>> But it >>>> doesn't, that is still 12-14. So, from a knowledge of our system, >>>> they >>>> might be able to infer that I might open 1NT (even if my partner >>>> can't >>>> figure that out). >>> >>> Sounds like an infraction to me. >>> >>> Bob and his partner are not new to bridge. They have been playing a >>> system with 12-14 and 15-17 1NT rebid and opening bid ranges, >>> presumably long enough to be familiar with it. So if they decide to >>> change the 1NT opening to 16 exactly, and simultaneously decide not >>> to define any way to show a balanced 15-count, they must realize, >>> whether they discuss it explicitly or not, that there is an unfilled >>> hole, and that the only sensible way to plug it will be to treat >>> their 15-counts as either good 14s or light 16s. >>> >>> In effect, I am applying a "reasonable man" test to Bob's contention >>> that it never occurred to him that he would ever again have to deal >>> with a balanced 15-count until he actually picked one up, and >>> rejecting it. Convention card notwithstanding, he and his partner >>> were in fact playing 12-15 and 15-16 (actually 15-17, with the next >>> range 17-something), should have known it, and should have described >>> it as such. >> >> Quick summary: Misinformation based on holes is probably an infraction >> (Hans, Eric) but accepted as legal in practice (Marvin). > > I did not mean to suggest that "misinformation based on holes is > probably an infraction" per se. Any system has holes. And the vast > majority of those "holes" are sufficiently subtle that it is entirely > reasonable to believe that a player might become aware of them only > when actually picking up the relevant hand for the first time. That > was not, however, the case here (IMO). > >> Justifications for why it would be an infraction differ. I think it >> is an >> L20F1 violation. Doesn't L20F require players to explain the >> meaning of a >> bid within their system? For example, a Precision 1D cannot be >> explained >> as just an opening hand with no other opening bid, but instead the >> Precision Players must use their knowledge of the other opening >> bids to >> describe the 1D opening in terms of strength and length. > > The only law needed here is L40A. "Partnership understandings as to > the [holes in their] methods... may be reached... implicitly through > mutual... awareness... Each partnership has a duty to make > available..." > >> I doubt one can find a law that has the director decision depending on >> whether or not the players knew they had the hole. Similarly, no >> law will >> differentiate on size of hole. > > The decision doesn't require mind-reading what they "knew", but > rather deciding what they may reasonably be expected to know. It > depends entirely on whether the hole is "big enough" to create a > presumption of "mutual awareness". Recall that my rationale for > finding an infraction in Bob's case was, "I am applying a 'reasonable > man' test to Bob's contention... and rejecting it." Hi Eric. Thanks for clarifying that. I will put you down for saying that it is okay to misdecribe partner's hand because of a hole, except when there is presumable mutual awareness. But do you really mean "mutual awareness" of the hole? You are using Law 40, which would seem to make relevant only partner's awareness during the bidding of the relevance of the hole. To give a different example, it might easily be mutual awareness that there is a hole in Standard American for a hand that contains a singleton, not four spades, and not strong enough for a reverse. However, the relevance of that hole probably would not occur to a player when his partner opens 1NT. Bob, who is now thinking he should have entitled this "systemically predictable deviations from announced understandings" From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 3 22:26:07 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:26:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] filling holes In-Reply-To: <40519.99.7.154.104.1246640912.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <40519.99.7.154.104.1246640912.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <00A50627-2E47-493D-9508-B0101FD7B9C7@starpower.net> On Jul 3, 2009, at 1:08 PM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: >> On Jul 3, 2009, at 10:32 AM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: >> >>> Quick summary: Misinformation based on holes is probably an >>> infraction >>> (Hans, Eric) but accepted as legal in practice (Marvin). >> >> I did not mean to suggest that "misinformation based on holes is >> probably an infraction" per se. Any system has holes. And the vast >> majority of those "holes" are sufficiently subtle that it is entirely >> reasonable to believe that a player might become aware of them only >> when actually picking up the relevant hand for the first time. That >> was not, however, the case here (IMO). >> >>> Justifications for why it would be an infraction differ. I think it >>> is an >>> L20F1 violation. Doesn't L20F require players to explain the >>> meaning of a >>> bid within their system? For example, a Precision 1D cannot be >>> explained >>> as just an opening hand with no other opening bid, but instead the >>> Precision Players must use their knowledge of the other opening >>> bids to >>> describe the 1D opening in terms of strength and length. >> >> The only law needed here is L40A. "Partnership understandings as to >> the [holes in their] methods... may be reached... implicitly through >> mutual... awareness... Each partnership has a duty to make >> available..." >> >>> I doubt one can find a law that has the director decision >>> depending on >>> whether or not the players knew they had the hole. Similarly, no >>> law will >>> differentiate on size of hole. >> >> The decision doesn't require mind-reading what they "knew", but >> rather deciding what they may reasonably be expected to know. It >> depends entirely on whether the hole is "big enough" to create a >> presumption of "mutual awareness". Recall that my rationale for >> finding an infraction in Bob's case was, "I am applying a 'reasonable >> man' test to Bob's contention... and rejecting it." > > Hi Eric. Thanks for clarifying that. I will put you down for saying > that > it is okay to misdecribe partner's hand because of a hole, except when > there is presumable mutual awareness. > > But do you really mean "mutual awareness" of the hole? You are > using Law > 40, which would seem to make relevant only partner's awareness > during the > bidding of the relevance of the hole. To give a different example, it > might easily be mutual awareness that there is a hole in Standard > American > for a hand that contains a singleton, not four spades, and not strong > enough for a reverse. However, the relevance of that hole probably > would > not occur to a player when his partner opens 1NT. > > Bob, who is now thinking he should have entitled this "systemically > predictable deviations from announced understandings" Well, I was addressing a particular example, not trying to establish doctrine, and do not claim to offer principles that would necessarily serve to handle the hard cases. But this was an awfully easy case. This pair had an established system with complete understandings regarding contiguous notrump ranges, then explicitly agreed to change one of those ranges, by doing which they introduced an obvious hole that wasn't there previously. All I did in ruling was decline to accept the equivalent of a temporary insanity plea -- that this pair could explicitly discuss the fact that balanced 15-counts would no longer be opened with 1NT without it ever occuring to either of them that balanced 15- counts would thereby have to be opened with something else -- and noting that, given their awareness, their mutual failure to explicitly mention it in one another's hearing does not get them off the hook. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 3 23:21:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 22:21:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Website to look on for team lists for Brazil Message-ID: <001801c9fc24$36dd1310$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <200907021554.n62Fsl4F026618@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A4E988A.9000005@nhcc.net> > L23 is now part of Chapter V - The Auction. As others have mentioned, the chapters are gone except in the ACBL version. > Did the drafting committee intend for it to apply to the play > also? From the Introduction: "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law...." Or did the ACBL leave that out, too? From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 4 10:30:35 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:30:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] filling holes In-Reply-To: References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <4A4F132B.7010407@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> Quick summary: Misinformation based on holes is probably an infraction >> (Hans, Eric) but accepted as legal in practice (Marvin). > > I did not mean to suggest that "misinformation based on holes is > probably an infraction" per se. Any system has holes. And the vast > majority of those "holes" are sufficiently subtle that it is entirely > reasonable to believe that a player might become aware of them only > when actually picking up the relevant hand for the first time. That > was not, however, the case here (IMO). > Completely correct. However, it is not up to the Director to try and find out if the players have seen the hand come up before, or whether they did or did not discuss about the hole. The director should investigate, find out that there was a hole, and rule that the solution that was actually taken at the table, forms part of the system. And, if not explained, constitutes MI. I had a case wednesday where the bidding went: 2NT - 3He 4He - 4Sp pass 2NT showed a strongish hand with a twosuiter in minors or majors. 3He was explained as a heart suit. 4He showed both majors opener passed on 4Sp! responder held a 4144. Both players stated that they had never had the hand before, but when it transpired that 3He was game-forcing, I ruled that the explanation was not correct. 3He merely asked for a description (3NT would show the minors, 4He the majors - no other bids apparently available). This, combined with the pass over 4Sp (no-one says they need to have a _good_ system, do they?), convinced me to rule MI. They were not pleased. Luckily for the tournament, there was no damage. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 4 11:07:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:07:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] filling holes References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <4A4F132B.7010407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001601c9fc86$d571c4f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] filling holes > Eric Landau wrote: >>> Quick summary: Misinformation based on holes is probably an infraction >>> (Hans, Eric) but accepted as legal in practice (Marvin). >> >> I did not mean to suggest that "misinformation based on holes is >> probably an infraction" per se. Any system has holes. And the vast >> majority of those "holes" are sufficiently subtle that it is entirely >> reasonable to believe that a player might become aware of them only >> when actually picking up the relevant hand for the first time. That >> was not, however, the case here (IMO). >> > > Completely correct. > However, it is not up to the Director to try and find out if the players > have seen the hand come up before, or whether they did or did not > discuss about the hole. The director should investigate, find out that > there was a hole, and rule that the solution that was actually taken at > the table, forms part of the system. And, if not explained, constitutes > MI. > > I had a case wednesday where the bidding went: > > 2NT - 3He > 4He - 4Sp > pass > > 2NT showed a strongish hand with a twosuiter in minors or majors. > 3He was explained as a heart suit. > 4He showed both majors > opener passed on 4Sp! > responder held a 4144. > > Both players stated that they had never had the hand before, but when it > transpired that 3He was game-forcing, I ruled that the explanation was > not correct. 3He merely asked for a description (3NT would show the > minors, 4He the majors - no other bids apparently available). This, > combined with the pass over 4Sp (no-one says they need to have a _good_ > system, do they?), convinced me to rule MI. They were not pleased. > Luckily for the tournament, there was no damage. > > Herman. < +=+ Ahem ..... gently speaking ..... When Herman says "The director should investigate, find out that there was a hole, and rule that the solution that was actually taken at the table, forms part of the system" I worry about 'should'. It seems to me that we must not deny the Director his judgement and 'may' is a better word. Nothing in the laws appears to require that there must be a partnership understanding with regard to every call in every conceivable situation. A response to enquiry that informs opponent there is no partnership understanding is as much an 'explanation of their auction' as a partnership can be expected to give when there is one of these cosmic 'holes', it may perhaps be suggested. The Director should not invent an understanding unless he is persuaded he has evidence of it, although he may find himself convinced by the coincidence of the partners' actions. ~ G ~ +=+ From blml at arcor.de Sat Jul 4 11:22:31 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:22:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] filling holes In-Reply-To: <4A4F132B.7010407@skynet.be> References: <4A4F132B.7010407@skynet.be> <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <3043217.1246699351078.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> > Completely correct. > However, it is not up to the Director to try and find out if the players > have seen the hand come up before, or whether they did or did not > discuss about the hole. The director should investigate, find out that > there was a hole, and rule that the solution that was actually taken at > the table, forms part of the system. And, if not explained, constitutes MI. > > I had a case wednesday where the bidding went: > > 2NT - 3He > 4He - 4Sp > pass > > 2NT showed a strongish hand with a twosuiter in minors or majors. > 3He was explained as a heart suit. > 4He showed both majors > opener passed on 4Sp! > responder held a 4144. > > Both players stated that they had never had the hand before, but when it > transpired that 3He was game-forcing, I ruled that the explanation was > not correct. 3He merely asked for a description (3NT would show the > minors, 4He the majors - no other bids apparently available). This, > combined with the pass over 4Sp (no-one says they need to have a _good_ > system, do they?), convinced me to rule MI. They were not pleased. > Luckily for the tournament, there was no damage. This has a certain stink. First, opener informs opponents that 3H shows a H suit. Then he passes 4S. The director should investigate whether opener use UI when he passed 4S. Thomas Jetzt neu: Arcor- Online Butler 5.0 als kostenfreier Download! Der Arcor-Online Butler loggt Sie automatisch in unsere Online-Dienste ein und Sie kommen mit einem Klick zu Ihren E-Mails, zum Chat und vielem mehr. www.arcor.de/rd/butler From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 4 11:25:06 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:25:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] filling holes In-Reply-To: <001601c9fc86$d571c4f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <4A4F132B.7010407@skynet.be> <001601c9fc86$d571c4f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A4F1FF2.7000300@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > >> >> Herman. > < > +=+ Ahem ..... gently speaking ..... > When Herman says "The director should investigate, find out that > there was a hole, and rule that the solution that was actually taken > at the table, forms part of the system" I worry about 'should'. It > seems to me that we must not deny the Director his judgement > and 'may' is a better word. > Nothing in the laws appears to require that > there must be a partnership understanding with regard to every > call in every conceivable situation. A response to enquiry that > informs opponent there is no partnership understanding is as > much an 'explanation of their auction' as a partnership can be > expected to give when there is one of these cosmic 'holes', it > may perhaps be suggested. The Director should not invent an > understanding unless he is persuaded he has evidence of it, > although he may find himself convinced by the coincidence of > the partners' actions. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Are we not saying the same thing here, Grattan? "evidence of an understanding" "coincidence of partner's actions" Are these not precisely the things I am talking about when saying that there needs to be no firm indication of a real agreement, in order for the director to be able to rule that there is system? When players inform the director that bid A shows hand A, and bid B shows hand B, but they refuse to agree that bid C shows (non A or B), is it not up to the director to rule that he has enough evidence that, in fact, it does show this? If we rule otherwise, do we not give a free hand to less-than-ethical players? Herman. From blml at arcor.de Sat Jul 4 11:39:54 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:39:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Spam filters (was: Conditions of Contest for Brazil) In-Reply-To: <4A4DC9D1.4080909@ripe.net> References: <4A4DC9D1.4080909@ripe.net> <003301c9fbbb$b1d37050$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <28650189.1246700394619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > *From:* Anna Gudge > > > I have sent this email to BLML but it doesn?t appear yet ? am I doing > > something wrong ? Or can you relay it for me ? > > It looks as if the mail was sent by "AnnaGudge at ecats.co.uk". This person > is not subscribed to the list and then the mail was automatically discarded > as spam. > > There is an "anna at ecats.co.uk" on the list. To avoid this from happening > again, either post from this address or subscribe as > "AnnaGudge at ecats.co.uk". Even though I am well aware of this filter, I still run into it once in a while. Many people have multiple mail addresses. Subscribing to the same mailing list from multiple mail addresses is not practical. Notice the mail address I use on BLML: "thomas-blml at arcor.de". This is a BLML specific mail address. If it should attract bulk quantities of spam, I would just disable that one mailing address, without impacting any other services I have subscribed. I would prefer different spam filters: mails that contain the full name of somebody subscribed to the mailing list, just with a different mail address, should not simply be deleted by the spam filter. Especially, if such mails also contain BLML in the subject line, they should just be sent through to the list. Thomas Jetzt neu: Arcor- Online Butler 5.0 als kostenfreier Download! Der Arcor-Online Butler loggt Sie automatisch in unsere Online-Dienste ein und Sie kommen mit einem Klick zu Ihren E-Mails, zum Chat und vielem mehr. www.arcor.de/rd/butler From blml at arcor.de Sat Jul 4 11:51:10 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:51:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] filling holes In-Reply-To: <4A4F1FF2.7000300@skynet.be> References: <4A4F1FF2.7000300@skynet.be> <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <4A4F132B.7010407@skynet.be> <001601c9fc86$d571c4f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <5765149.1246701070082.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > > >> > >> Herman. > > < > > +=+ Ahem ..... gently speaking ..... > > When Herman says "The director should investigate, find out that > > there was a hole, and rule that the solution that was actually taken > > at the table, forms part of the system" I worry about 'should'. It > > seems to me that we must not deny the Director his judgement > > and 'may' is a better word. > > Nothing in the laws appears to require that > > there must be a partnership understanding with regard to every > > call in every conceivable situation. A response to enquiry that > > informs opponent there is no partnership understanding is as > > much an 'explanation of their auction' as a partnership can be > > expected to give when there is one of these cosmic 'holes', it > > may perhaps be suggested. The Director should not invent an > > understanding unless he is persuaded he has evidence of it, > > although he may find himself convinced by the coincidence of > > the partners' actions. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > Are we not saying the same thing here, Grattan? > "evidence of an understanding" > "coincidence of partner's actions" > Are these not precisely the things I am talking about when saying that > there needs to be no firm indication of a real agreement, in order for > the director to be able to rule that there is system? > > When players inform the director that bid A shows hand A, and bid B > shows hand B, but they refuse to agree that bid C shows (non A or B), is > it not up to the director to rule that he has enough evidence that, in > fact, it does show this? > If we rule otherwise, do we not give a free hand to less-than-ethical > players? I disagree slightly, but only slightly. L20F applies, especially, "a player is ... entilted to know about relevant alternative calls available that were not made" Thus, for bid C, the explanation at least has to provide the information that bid A shows A and bid B shows B, whereas "oh, we have no agreement on bid C" is MI. However, the player is not entitled to get the information that bid C shows (not A and not B) if no such agreement exists. Minor nitpick: the fact that bid A shows A and bid B shows B does not imply that bid C shows (not A and not B). Thomas Jetzt neu: Arcor- Online Butler 5.0 als kostenfreier Download! Der Arcor-Online Butler loggt Sie automatisch in unsere Online-Dienste ein und Sie kommen mit einem Klick zu Ihren E-Mails, zum Chat und vielem mehr. www.arcor.de/rd/butler From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jul 4 14:37:47 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:37:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] holes and tableof contents Message-ID: <4A4F4D1B.1040708@aol.com> Hola! Why are we talking about (mere) holes and not "black holes"? Recently I had occasion to check the laws concerning claims. I probably have greater knowledge and facility of/with the TBR than the average club director. Previously I glanced at the table of contents and found the appropriate number and page for the law. That was fast and simple. Now I have to browse and that takes time. In this case I could probably check the index but that is not always possible with some problems since the formulation of the problem by the TD involved may differ from the formulation in the index. Or the irregularity might not be so clearly linked to a specific law. In short, it was much easier and faster with a table of contents. JE From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Sat Jul 4 16:42:22 2009 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (Raghavan P.S.) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 20:12:22 +0530 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Website to look on for team lists for Brazil In-Reply-To: <001801c9fc24$36dd1310$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001801c9fc24$36dd1310$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: *Dear Grattan, Our greetings to you. We have a bridge website covering world Bridge events apart from Appeals, Bridge Columns and Bridge theory. View > http://bridgeinindia.homestead.com/bridgeinIndiawelcometext.html The notification regarding Transnational event in World Team championship 2009 @ Brazil, Has been published in the first page of our site. This is to infuse more number of entries for the event as desired by Anna Gudge of Ecats.. With Regards Dr Raghavan.P.S. Editor at BridgeIndia.com BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph = +91-044-23761038 Mobile> > = 9940273749 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "The searcher's eye not seldom > finds more than he wished to find." > [Gotthold Lessing, 1779] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Anna Gudge > *To:* grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk > *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2009 4:28 PM > *Subject:* Website to look on for team lists for Brazil > > Dear Grattan > > > > I forgot to say that the team lists are at: > > > > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Events/wbf/2009brazil/teamlists.asp > > > > The lists on the WBF Website are not yet fully updated but I am > > sure they will be soon > > > > Sorry if I confused you ! > > > > > > > > Best regards > > anna > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090704/f9f235cb/attachment.html From tom at abacurial.com Sat Jul 4 23:37:12 2009 From: tom at abacurial.com (tOM Trottier) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:37:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Spam filters (was: Conditions of Contest for Brazil) In-Reply-To: <28650189.1246700394619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <4A4DC9D1.4080909@ripe.net>, <28650189.1246700394619.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A4F9348.1737.8108C4A@tom.abacurial.com> This is also easily handled by subscribing all your email addresses to the list and turning off delivery for all but one. Peace, tOM On Saturday, July 04, 2009 at 11:39, Thomas Dehn wrote: >Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > Grattan wrote: >> > *From:* Anna Gudge >> >> > I have sent this email to BLML but it doesn?t appear yet ? am I doing >> > something wrong ? Or can you relay it for me ? >> >> It looks as if the mail was sent by "AnnaGudge at ecats.co.uk". This person >> is not subscribed to the list and then the mail was automatically discarded >> as spam. >> >> There is an "anna at ecats.co.uk" on the list. To avoid this from happening >> again, either post from this address or subscribe as >> "AnnaGudge at ecats.co.uk". > >Even though I am well aware of this filter, I still run into it once in a while. > >Many people have multiple mail addresses. >Subscribing to the same mailing list from multiple mail >addresses is not practical. Notice the mail address I use on BLML: >"thomas-blml at arcor.de". This is a BLML specific mail >address. If it should attract bulk quantities of spam, I would just disable >that one mailing address, without impacting any other >services I have subscribed. > >I would prefer different spam filters: mails that contain >the full name of somebody subscribed to the mailing list, >just with a different mail address, should not simply be >deleted by the spam filter. Especially, if such mails also contain BLML >in the subject line, they should just be sent through to the list. > > >Thomas > >Jetzt neu: Arcor- Online Butler 5.0 als kostenfreier Download! >Der Arcor-Online Butler loggt Sie automatisch in unsere Online-Dienste ein und Sie kommen mit einem Klick zu Ihren E-Mails, zum Chat und vielem mehr. >www.arcor.de/rd/butler >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Absum! -- tOM Trottier, +1 613 860-6633 469 Ancaster Ave, Ottawa, ON K2B 5B6 Canada http://Information.Architecture.Abacurial.com Est-ce c'est necessaire d'imprimer ce courriel? Do you really need to print this email? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 5 16:19:32 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:19:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] filling holes (L20F1) In-Reply-To: <001601c9fc86$d571c4f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <4A4F132B.7010407@skynet.be> <001601c9fc86$d571c4f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <34548.216.169.168.82.1246803572.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "The searcher's eye not seldom > finds more than he wished to find." > [Gotthold Lessing, 1779] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 9:30 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] filling holes > > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>>> Quick summary: Misinformation based on holes is probably an infraction >>>> (Hans, Eric) but accepted as legal in practice (Marvin). >>> >>> I did not mean to suggest that "misinformation based on holes is >>> probably an infraction" per se. Any system has holes. And the vast >>> majority of those "holes" are sufficiently subtle that it is entirely >>> reasonable to believe that a player might become aware of them only >>> when actually picking up the relevant hand for the first time. That >>> was not, however, the case here (IMO). >>> >> >> Completely correct. >> However, it is not up to the Director to try and find out if the players >> have seen the hand come up before, or whether they did or did not >> discuss about the hole. The director should investigate, find out that >> there was a hole, and rule that the solution that was actually taken at >> the table, forms part of the system. And, if not explained, constitutes >> MI. >> >> I had a case wednesday where the bidding went: >> >> 2NT - 3He >> 4He - 4Sp >> pass >> >> 2NT showed a strongish hand with a twosuiter in minors or majors. >> 3He was explained as a heart suit. >> 4He showed both majors >> opener passed on 4Sp! >> responder held a 4144. >> >> Both players stated that they had never had the hand before, but when it >> transpired that 3He was game-forcing, I ruled that the explanation was >> not correct. 3He merely asked for a description (3NT would show the >> minors, 4He the majors - no other bids apparently available). This, >> combined with the pass over 4Sp (no-one says they need to have a _good_ >> system, do they?), convinced me to rule MI. They were not pleased. >> Luckily for the tournament, there was no damage. >> >> Herman. > < > +=+ Ahem ..... gently speaking ..... > When Herman says "The director should investigate, find out that > there was a hole, and rule that the solution that was actually taken > at the table, forms part of the system" I worry about 'should'. It > seems to me that we must not deny the Director his judgement > and 'may' is a better word. > Nothing in the laws appears to require that > there must be a partnership understanding with regard to every > call in every conceivable situation. A response to enquiry that > informs opponent there is no partnership understanding is as > much an 'explanation of their auction' as a partnership can be > expected to give when there is one of these cosmic 'holes', it > may perhaps be suggested. The Director should not invent an > understanding unless he is persuaded he has evidence of it, > although he may find himself convinced by the coincidence of > the partners' actions. > ~ G ~ +=+ This is a response to Eric also. Consider the Precision 1Di, which can be efficiently described as showing an opening hand with no other opening bid. (I have heard of this description actually being used for the Polish Club.) In other words, 1Di fills a giant hole. When opponents ask what a 1D opening means, is this agreement enough of an explanation? After I start playing Precision, I will gain an implicit understanding of what partner might have. So at the start, the opponents might ask how many diamonds my partner has, and I will say no agreement. Then after a while, I might say no agreement but I have seen him do it with as few as 3 diamonds and as many as 6 diamonds. Then when I see him open 1D having only two diamonds, I can tell the opponents that he might have only two. If they ask if he might have one, I will say only that I haven't seen it. I hope this is not how we want to play bridge and that there must be some rules against it. One is to require players to know their system. If you require this, then you are going to require them to also know about the holes they haven't filled. Another possibility is to read Law 20F6 as requiring the player to at least be forced to say the meaning of the other bids that could have been opened. This would be an information dump. But if the player was somehow required to state the implications of the fact that other bids were not selected, then you would be requiring a meaninful description of 1D. But I think this too is going to end up also requiring players to provide the meaning of bids that could be filling true holes. So I don't see (yet?) how you can prevent the informationless explanation for the Precision 1D and allow misinformation based on unfilled holes. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 5 20:33:50 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 20:33:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] filling holes (L20F1) In-Reply-To: <34548.216.169.168.82.1246803572.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <4A4F132B.7010407@skynet.be> <001601c9fc86$d571c4f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <34548.216.169.168.82.1246803572.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <000001c9fd9f$24a1f130$6de5d390$@no> On Behalf Of rfrick at rfrick.info ............... > This is a response to Eric also. Consider the Precision 1Di, which can be > efficiently described as showing an opening hand with no other opening > bid. (I have heard of this description actually being used for the Polish > Club.) In other words, 1Di fills a giant hole. > > When opponents ask what a 1D opening means, is this agreement enough of an > explanation? NO! Many years ago I used to play precision, and our declaration of the 1D opening bid was: Either a normal 11-15 opening bid with at least four diamonds or an 11-12 HCP NoTump shaped hand that can have as few as two diamonds. (Not that I brag about a good declaration, but IMHO this declaration style is the only acceptable description of the bid) Regards Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Sun Jul 5 23:05:09 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 23:05:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh Message-ID: Hi gang, Polish Summer Congress in S?awa ?l?ska, a case from today. Declarer, my teammate, is in a spade contract. His clubs are AKx opposite a doubleton in dummy. He cashes his AK in clubs and plays a third club with the intention of ruffing it in dummy. Lefty follows twice, then on the third round of the suit goes into the tank, puts his cards on the table, picks them up, scratches his head, analyzes, shakes his head, fumbles, looks at the ceilling etc. After a minute a spectator cannot take it any more and says "Jesus, what the hell are you doing, you still have one club to follow suit!". My teammate called the TD claiming that the LHO was obviously on his way to revoking and that the kibitzer's remark prevented him from doing so. The actual rulling (the TD rulled "play on" and then "result stands" after the hand was over) is secondary here, the key questions are what the rulling should have been and _why_? Does it matter if the viewer was my teammate's kibitzer, potential revoker's kibitzer or a neutral one? Please provide law numbers on which you are intending to base your rulling. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090705/a8418372/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 6 00:56:17 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 00:56:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701c9fdc3$ce7f7780$6b7e6680$@no> Hi gang, ? Polish Summer Congress in S?awa ?l?ska, a case from today. ? Declarer, my teammate, is in a spade contract. His clubs are AKx opposite a doubleton in dummy. He cashes his AK in clubs and plays a third club with the intention of ruffing it in dummy. Lefty follows twice, then on the third round of the suit goes into?the tank, puts his cards on the table, picks them up, scratches his head, analyzes, shakes his head,?fumbles, looks at the ceilling?etc. After a minute a?spectator cannot?take it any more and says "Jesus, what the hell are you doing, you still have one club to follow suit!". ? My teammate called the TD claiming that?the LHO was obviously on his way to revoking and that the kibitzer's remark prevented him from doing so. The actual rulling (the TD rulled "play on" and then "result stands" after the?hand was over) is secondary here, the key questions?are what the rulling should have been and _why_? ? Does it matter if the viewer?was my teammate's kibitzer, potential revoker's kibitzer or a neutral one? ? Please provide law numbers on which you are intending to base your rulling. ? My comments: The easy part is your last question: Before 2007 it did indeed matter, but that part of the laws (1997 Law 11B) was removed in the 2007 laws so now the answer is that it no longer matters whether the spectator is neutral or interested in one side or the other (a situation that I indeed regret). In my opinion the Director has no alternative other than to rule as he did. It is too farfetched to rule that your side was "damaged" or he could have applied Law 12A1. The Director should of course instruct the spectator on Law 76, that doesn't seem to be the main issue here? Regards Sven From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jul 6 01:13:07 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 19:13:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Law 76C2: Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers may specify how to deal with irregularities caused by spectators. The old L11B gave official procedures for dealing with spectators; while it is gone, the guidelines are reasonable and the tournament committee may still use them. The right to penalize ("rectify", in the new language, but that is really inappropriate here) an irregularity may be forfeited if a NOS spectator calls attention to it, and the right to correct an irregularity may be forfeited if an OS spectator calls attention to it. Thus the ruling should be easy if the kibitzer is on one side; rule a revoke with appropriate adjustment if the kibitzer is a member of the OS (as the revoke would be likely without the remark), and no penalty if the kibitzer is a member of the NOS. If the kibitzer is neutral, the TD needs to determine what would be likely without the remark; the remark is extraneous information from a third party, governed by L16C. The player who might have revoked should be asked what he was thinking about. (And if the kibitzer is a member of another team, he should be given a procedural penalty at least equal to the number of matchpoints at stake.) ----- Original Message ----- From: Konrad Ciborowski To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 5:05 PM Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh Hi gang, Polish Summer Congress in S?awa ?l?ska, a case from today. Declarer, my teammate, is in a spade contract. His clubs are AKx opposite a doubleton in dummy. He cashes his AK in clubs and plays a third club with the intention of ruffing it in dummy. Lefty follows twice, then on the third round of the suit goes into the tank, puts his cards on the table, picks them up, scratches his head, analyzes, shakes his head, fumbles, looks at the ceilling etc. After a minute a spectator cannot take it any more and says "Jesus, what the hell are you doing, you still have one club to follow suit!". My teammate called the TD claiming that the LHO was obviously on his way to revoking and that the kibitzer's remark prevented him from doing so. The actual rulling (the TD rulled "play on" and then "result stands" after the hand was over) is secondary here, the key questions are what the rulling should have been and _why_? Does it matter if the viewer was my teammate's kibitzer, potential revoker's kibitzer or a neutral one? Please provide law numbers on which you are intending to base your rulling. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Promocja ubezpieczen komunikacyjnych Ergo Hestia. Sprawdz! http://link.interia.pl/f222f ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20090705/bdb7bf87/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 6 02:21:18 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 02:21:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000e01c9fdcf$aead9980$0c08cc80$@no> On Behalf Of David Grabiner Law 76C2: Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers may specify how to deal with irregularities caused by spectators. The old L11B gave official procedures for dealing with spectators; while it is gone, the guidelines are reasonable and the tournament committee may still use them.? The right to penalize ("rectify", in the new language, but that is really inappropriate here) an irregularity may be forfeited if a NOS spectator calls attention to it, and the right to correct an irregularity may be forfeited if an OS spectator calls attention to it.? Thus the ruling should be easy if the kibitzer is on one side; rule a revoke with appropriate adjustment if the kibitzer is a member of the OS (as the revoke would be likely without the remark), and no penalty if the kibitzer is a member of the NOS. ? If the kibitzer is neutral, the TD needs to determine what would be likely without the remark; the remark is extraneous information from a third party, governed by L16C.? The player who might have revoked should be asked what he was thinking about.? (And if the kibitzer is a member of another team, he should be given a procedural penalty at least equal to the number of matchpoints at stake.) ? My comment: Don't overlook Law 61B3! Is the partner to the defender that might have revoked disqualified from using Law 61B3 and in case reduce the possible revoke to a possible penalty card? And don't forget the condition in Law 12 for assigning an adjusted score: The non-offending side must have been damaged. Does "damage" (as defined by WBFLC) include the loss of rectification for an irregularity that was avoided? They have made it very clear that possible illegal plays are not to be taken into consideration when assessing "damage". Regards Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Jul 6 08:32:49 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 08:32:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh References: <000701c9fdc3$ce7f7780$6b7e6680$@no> Message-ID: <664E5DA69F644114A49E9BDFA01698EB@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" >In my opinion the Director has no alternative other than to rule as he did. >It is too farfetched to rule that your side was "damaged" or he could have >applied Law 12A1. What about 16C? The spectator certainly was "another source", the question is if the information "you still have a club" is "extraneous" or not. On one hand we have 7B2 forcing the player to "inspect the faces of his cards" and then 16A1c according to which any information "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws" is deemed authorized. So one might argue that from this point of view the kibitzer didn't give the player any UI at all. On the other hand it is beyond any doubt that the player was thinking about which card to discard so he clearly was not aware of the fact that he still had a club and therefore the information that he still had a card in the suit clearly was "extraneous" to him in the dictionary sense of the word. That's a tough one in my opinion. BTW as for 76C2 the Polish Bridge Union haven't specified any guidelines in the area which makes the situation even murkier. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ubezpieczenie komunikacyjne wraz z ubezpieczeniem kosztow leczenia za granic?. http://link.interia.pl/f222b From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Jul 6 09:04:52 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 09:04:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh References: <000701c9fdc3$ce7f7780$6b7e6680$@no> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" >The Director should of course instruct the spectator on Law 76, that >doesn't >seem to be the main issue here? No, it is not, because the TD pulled out a gun and shot the spectator dead. There was some disagreement between the directing staff of the congress that the penalty was too light, the Chief TD (as well as other members of bridge community) was advocating hanging, drawing and quartering the kibitzer in public view. Thus the young TD in question might face a small suspession for treating the offender too lightly. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wybierz najlepsze ubezpieczenie komunikacyjne w Ergo Hestia http://link.interia.pl/f222a From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 6 09:38:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 08:38:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] July 5th. Message-ID: <001a01c9fe0c$d4126dd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" . Thus the young TD in question might face a small suspension for treating the offender too lightly. +=+ By the neck? +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 6 10:28:29 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:28:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] filling holes (L20F1) In-Reply-To: <34548.216.169.168.82.1246803572.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <4A4F132B.7010407@skynet.be> <001601c9fc86$d571c4f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <34548.216.169.168.82.1246803572.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <4A51B5AD.4000407@skynet.be> rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: [snip] > > Then when I see him open 1D having only two diamonds, I can tell the > opponents that he might have only two. If they ask if he might have one, I > will say only that I haven't seen it. > > I hope this is not how we want to play bridge and that there must be some > rules against it. > Of course it is not. > One is to require players to know their system. If you require this, then > you are going to require them to also know about the holes they haven't > filled. > A requirement which cannot be upheld. You are not required to play good bridge. > Another possibility is to read Law 20F6 as requiring the player to at > least be forced to say the meaning of the other bids that could have been > opened. This would be an information dump. But if the player was somehow > required to state the implications of the fact that other bids were not > selected, then you would be requiring a meaninful description of 1D. But I > think this too is going to end up also requiring players to provide the > meaning of bids that could be filling true holes. > I don't see why this should be a problem. Consider the parallel problem: A pair agrees to play Ghestem - and one player bids 3Cl. The other forgets to alert, and raises the clubs. Afterwards, the responder says "I don't know what Ghestem means, I thought it contained only the cue-bid and the 2NT". Do we rule that, since the player does not know, he was right in not alerting? No we don't. We assume that opponents have the right to know the "agreement", even when we are convinced the partner did not know it. Not knowing is not an excuse. Similarly, from the general description of the Precision system, as TD, we deduce that 1Di can be opened on a singleton. This is knowledge which is available to the partnership, and which must be made available to the opponents. The fact that responder (or even opener) does not "know" that this is possible does not alter the fact that the opponents are entitled to know it. Far too often, the sentence "they are entitled to know" is replaced by "you should have told them", which creates the reaction "how can I tell them what I don't know myself?". By focusing on the "they are entitled to know", a TD can circumvent those problems in ruling against people who have holes in their system. Herman. > So I don't see (yet?) how you can prevent the informationless explanation > for the Precision 1D and allow misinformation based on unfilled holes. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 6 11:06:56 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:06:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh References: <000701c9fdc3$ce7f7780$6b7e6680$@no> <664E5DA69F644114A49E9BDFA01698EB@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <002101c9fe19$20d160c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 7:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A case still fresh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" >In my opinion the Director has no alternative other than to rule as he did.>It is too farfetched to rule that your side was "damaged" or he could have applied Law 12A1. .................................................................................................... What about 16C? The spectator certainly was "another source", the question is if the information "you still have a club" is "extraneous" or not. On one hand we have 7B2 forcing the player to "inspect the faces of his cards" and then 16A1c according to which any information "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws" is deemed authorized. So one might argue that from this point of view the kibitzer didn't give the player any UI at all. On the other hand it is beyond any doubt that the player was thinking about which card to discard so he clearly was not aware of the fact that he still had a club and therefore the information that he still had a card in the suit clearly was "extraneous" to him in the dictionary sense of the word. That's a tough one in my opinion. BTW as for 76C2 the Polish Bridge Union haven't specified any guidelines in the area which makes the situation even murkier. ....................................................................................... +=+ My approach: Is the information 'extraneous'? See Law 16A3. Where does it come from? Certainly it comes from 'other sources' (Law 16C). A question to be answered is whether it is 'accidental'. One meaning of 'accidental' is 'incidental' - i.e. as a minor accompaniment of something more substantial (which, I suggest, is the serious violation of Law 76B5). In this view the Director has authority to act under Law 16C3. He may (and should) use his authority to banish the spectator under Law 76A1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 6 12:09:26 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 12:09:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh In-Reply-To: <002101c9fe19$20d160c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000701c9fdc3$ce7f7780$6b7e6680$@no> <664E5DA69F644114A49E9BDFA01698EB@sfora4869e47f1> <002101c9fe19$20d160c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c9fe21$d87df8c0$8979ea40$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan ............... > Is the information 'extraneous'? See Law 16A3. > Where does it come from? Certainly it comes from > 'other sources' (Law 16C). A question to be answered > is whether it is 'accidental'. One meaning of 'accidental' is > 'incidental' - i.e. as a minor accompaniment of something > more substantial (which, I suggest, is the serious violation > of Law 76B5). > In this view the Director has authority to act under > Law 16C3. He may (and should) use his authority to > banish the spectator under Law 76A1. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree completely with all of this, but the important question is: What, if anything should the Director do with the result on the board? Is the loss of rectification for an expected infraction by opponents (when this infraction was avoided by a Law 16C3 irregularity) to be considered "damage"? Is an illegal play ever to be considered a logical alternative? And how shall the Director in case assess the expectation? If the player had been left fumbling with his cards without intervention from a spectator he might very well eventually have discovered that he had a club so that there would not have been any revoke at all. Or even if he had revoked his partner might have executed his Law 61B3 privilege resulting in a penalty card situation rather than an established revoke. Strictly speaking we don't even know what (if anything) the player was thinking of. I shall never forget the declarer who was holding up the entire round towards the end of his last board in the round; repeatedly looking at dummy and looking at his own cards, apparently without being able to make up his mind. When I came along and requested him to complete the board; I "could not allow him to spend any more time thinking", he (very honestly) replied: "I am not really thinking"! Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 6 15:54:06 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 09:54:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] filling holes (L20F1) In-Reply-To: <34548.216.169.168.82.1246803572.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <55514.99.7.154.104.1246549996.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <34900.99.7.154.104.1246631555.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <4A4F132B.7010407@skynet.be> <001601c9fc86$d571c4f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <34548.216.169.168.82.1246803572.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <047D0F76-26A4-4438-9E9B-7BF16187916A@starpower.net> On Jul 5, 2009, at 10:19 AM, rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > This is a response to Eric also. Consider the Precision 1Di, which > can be > efficiently described as showing an opening hand with no other opening > bid. (I have heard of this description actually being used for the > Polish > Club.) In other words, 1Di fills a giant hole. > > When opponents ask what a 1D opening means, is this agreement > enough of an > explanation? Of course not. You can't define something as the negative of something which is itself undefined. If the totality of your agreement about 1D is "an opening hand with no other opening bid", then a complete explanation must delineate your agreements about all the possible "other opening bids". Your opponents are entitled to know as much about partner's 1D opening as you do. But surely it would be easier to just work this out for yourself once, and provide a positive explanation. You'll only get away with the negative explanation once anyhow, as after that you will no longer be able to credibly claim that you never thought about it. > After I start playing Precision, I will gain an implicit > understanding of > what partner might have. So at the start, the opponents might ask > how many > diamonds my partner has, and I will say no agreement. Then after a > while, > I might say no agreement but I have seen him do it with as few as 3 > diamonds and as many as 6 diamonds. > > Then when I see him open 1D having only two diamonds, I can tell the > opponents that he might have only two. If they ask if he might have > one, I > will say only that I haven't seen it. > > I hope this is not how we want to play bridge and that there must > be some > rules against it. > > One is to require players to know their system. If you require > this, then > you are going to require them to also know about the holes they > haven't > filled. > > Another possibility is to read Law 20F6 as requiring the player to at > least be forced to say the meaning of the other bids that could > have been > opened. This would be an information dump. But if the player was > somehow > required to state the implications of the fact that other bids were > not > selected, then you would be requiring a meaninful description of > 1D. But I > think this too is going to end up also requiring players to provide > the > meaning of bids that could be filling true holes. > > So I don't see (yet?) how you can prevent the informationless > explanation > for the Precision 1D and allow misinformation based on unfilled holes. Another way to put this would be, I don't see how you can prevent cheaters from pretending ignorance of their methods to avoid giving their opponents information to which they're entitled. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 6 16:17:56 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:17:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh In-Reply-To: <000001c9fe21$d87df8c0$8979ea40$@no> References: <000701c9fdc3$ce7f7780$6b7e6680$@no> <664E5DA69F644114A49E9BDFA01698EB@sfora4869e47f1> <002101c9fe19$20d160c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c9fe21$d87df8c0$8979ea40$@no> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2009, at 6:09 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Grattan > ............... >> Is the information 'extraneous'? See Law 16A3. >> Where does it come from? Certainly it comes from >> 'other sources' (Law 16C). A question to be answered >> is whether it is 'accidental'. One meaning of 'accidental' is >> 'incidental' - i.e. as a minor accompaniment of something >> more substantial (which, I suggest, is the serious violation >> of Law 76B5). >> In this view the Director has authority to act under >> Law 16C3. He may (and should) use his authority to >> banish the spectator under Law 76A1. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I agree completely with all of this, but the important question is: > What, if > anything should the Director do with the result on the board? > > Is the loss of rectification for an expected infraction by > opponents (when > this infraction was avoided by a Law 16C3 irregularity) to be > considered > "damage"? > > Is an illegal play ever to be considered a logical alternative? > > And how shall the Director in case assess the expectation? > If the player had been left fumbling with his cards without > intervention > from a spectator he might very well eventually have discovered that > he had a > club so that there would not have been any revoke at all. > Or even if he had revoked his partner might have executed his Law 61B3 > privilege resulting in a penalty card situation rather than an > established > revoke. Lest we be distracted by the specifics of Konrad's at-the-table kibitzer situation, consider also the case of the player about to revoke until a disinterested passer-by tells the table that there's a card on the floor. I'm not sure what the right ruling is, but it does seem like it must be the same in either circumstance. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jul 6 16:29:28 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:29:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh In-Reply-To: <002101c9fe19$20d160c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000701c9fdc3$ce7f7780$6b7e6680$@no> <664E5DA69F644114A49E9BDFA01698EB@sfora4869e47f1> <002101c9fe19$20d160c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A520A48.7050404@aol.com> Is there a possibility of a split score? For the "innocent" side as if the revoke had been made and for Lefty's side no revoke or, perhaps 75% revoke (or whatever the percentage was for the chance the club to choose instead of any other card -- by 4 cards 1 in 4, thus 25%)? Doubt that this can be supported by the TBR. JE Grattan schrieb: > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "The searcher's eye not seldom > finds more than he wished to find." > [Gotthold Lessing, 1779] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 7:32 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] A case still fresh > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > >> In my opinion the Director has no alternative other > than to rule as he did.>It is too farfetched to rule that > your side was "damaged" or he could have applied > Law 12A1. > .................................................................................................... > What about 16C? The spectator certainly was > "another source", the question is if the information "you > still have a club" is "extraneous" or not. On one hand we > have 7B2 forcing the player to "inspect the faces of his > cards" and then 16A1c according to which any information > "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws" > is deemed authorized. So one might argue that from this > point of view the kibitzer didn't give the player any UI at all. > On the other hand it is beyond any doubt that the player > was thinking about which card to discard so he clearly was > not aware of the fact that he still had a club and therefore > the information that he still had a card in the suit clearly > was "extraneous" to him in the dictionary sense of the > word. > > That's a tough one in my opinion. > BTW as for 76C2 the Polish Bridge Union haven't > specified any guidelines in the area which makes the > situation even murkier. > ....................................................................................... > > +=+ My approach: > Is the information 'extraneous'? See Law 16A3. > Where does it come from? Certainly it comes from > 'other sources' (Law 16C). A question to be answered > is whether it is 'accidental'. One meaning of 'accidental' is > 'incidental' - i.e. as a minor accompaniment of something > more substantial (which, I suggest, is the serious violation > of Law 76B5). > In this view the Director has authority to act under > Law 16C3. He may (and should) use his authority to > banish the spectator under Law 76A1. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 6 17:11:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:11:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh References: <000701c9fdc3$ce7f7780$6b7e6680$@no> <664E5DA69F644114A49E9BDFA01698EB@sfora4869e47f1><002101c9fe19$20d160c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c9fe21$d87df8c0$8979ea40$@no> Message-ID: <001001c9fe4c$1bc7ac50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A case still fresh > On Behalf Of Grattan > ............... >> Is the information 'extraneous'? See Law 16A3. >> Where does it come from? Certainly it comes from >> 'other sources' (Law 16C). A question to be answered >> is whether it is 'accidental'. One meaning of 'accidental' is >> 'incidental' - i.e. as a minor accompaniment of something >> more substantial (which, I suggest, is the serious violation >> of Law 76B5). >> In this view the Director has authority to act under >> Law 16C3. He may (and should) use his authority to >> banish the spectator under Law 76A1. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I agree completely with all of this, but the important > question is: What, if anything should the Director do with the result on the board? > +=+ Please bear with me patiently as my mind makes its way through the thickets. 1. A violation of law by a spectator is not an 'infraction' - see Definitions. In passing this tells us that if we adjust scores we will not be in Law 12B1 territory. 2. We have decided that the Director will allow completion of the board, and then consider whether to award an adjusted score under Law 16C3. 3. He must judge whether UI may have affected the result and if so stand ready to adjust the score. If he thinks it at all possible the player was about to revoke it follows clearly that the spectator's warning 'may' have affected the result. 4. The players of both sides are non-offending. He will be giving each side the better of it. 5. In Law 12A the phrase applies that says "when these laws empower him to do so" (as 16C3 does) - it is a situation additional to the situations listed in 12A1,2,3. 6. A table result has been obtained; so unless 12C1(d) applies the adjusted score will be assigned, not artificial. 7. In knockout team play Law 86B will apply. ....................................................................................... Does this satisfy, or is there some objection? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 6 17:41:03 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:41:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh In-Reply-To: <001001c9fe4c$1bc7ac50$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000701c9fdc3$ce7f7780$6b7e6680$@no> <664E5DA69F644114A49E9BDFA01698EB@sfora4869e47f1><002101c9fe19$20d160c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c9fe21$d87df8c0$8979ea40$@no> <001001c9fe4c$1bc7ac50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c9fe50$2b7e5c30$827b1490$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:09 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] A case still fresh > > > > On Behalf Of Grattan > > ............... > >> Is the information 'extraneous'? See Law 16A3. > >> Where does it come from? Certainly it comes from > >> 'other sources' (Law 16C). A question to be answered > >> is whether it is 'accidental'. One meaning of 'accidental' is > >> 'incidental' - i.e. as a minor accompaniment of something > >> more substantial (which, I suggest, is the serious violation > >> of Law 76B5). > >> In this view the Director has authority to act under > >> Law 16C3. He may (and should) use his authority to > >> banish the spectator under Law 76A1. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I agree completely with all of this, but the important > > question is: What, if anything should the Director do with > the result on the board? > > > +=+ Please bear with me patiently as my mind makes its way > through the thickets. > 1. A violation of law by a spectator is not an 'infraction' > - see Definitions. In passing this tells us that if we adjust scores > we will not be in Law 12B1 territory. > 2. We have decided that the Director will allow completion > of the board, and then consider whether to award an adjusted > score under Law 16C3. > 3. He must judge whether UI may have affected the result > and if so stand ready to adjust the score. If he thinks it at all > possible the player was about to revoke it follows clearly that > the spectator's warning 'may' have affected the result. > 4. The players of both sides are non-offending. He will be > giving each side the better of it. > 5. In Law 12A the phrase applies that says "when these > laws empower him to do so" (as 16C3 does) - it is a situation > additional to the situations listed in 12A1,2,3. > 6. A table result has been obtained; so unless 12C1(d) > applies the adjusted score will be assigned, not artificial. > 7. In knockout team play Law 86B will apply. > ............................................................................ ........... > Does this satisfy, or is there some objection? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think this is a very good and clarifying summary. The same case has since been presented also on IBLF where we have had a reminder of Law 44C which makes it absolutely clear that even if we should rule North to be in possession of UI he has no option but to follow suit and therefore definitely is non-offending.. Thanks Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 6 18:04:26 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:04:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh In-Reply-To: <001001c9fe4c$1bc7ac50$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000701c9fdc3$ce7f7780$6b7e6680$@no> <664E5DA69F644114A49E9BDFA01698EB@sfora4869e47f1> <002101c9fe19$20d160c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c9fe21$d87df8c0$8979ea40$@no> <001001c9fe4c$1bc7ac50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:11:53 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "This day bears an awesome responsibility. > Not only were George W. Bush and Sylvester > Stallone born on July 6 but > 1854 The first official meeting of the > Republican Party took place in Jackson, Mich. > 1917 Arab forces led by T.E. Lawrence > captured the port of Aqaba from the Turks > during World War I. > 1923 The Union of Soviet Socialist > Republics was formed. > 1928 The first all-talking movie feature, > "The Lights of New York," was shown in > New York. > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:09 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] A case still fresh > > >> On Behalf Of Grattan >> ............... >>> Is the information 'extraneous'? See Law 16A3. >>> Where does it come from? Certainly it comes from >>> 'other sources' (Law 16C). A question to be answered >>> is whether it is 'accidental'. One meaning of 'accidental' is >>> 'incidental' - i.e. as a minor accompaniment of something >>> more substantial (which, I suggest, is the serious violation >>> of Law 76B5). >>> In this view the Director has authority to act under >>> Law 16C3. He may (and should) use his authority to >>> banish the spectator under Law 76A1. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> I agree completely with all of this, but the important >> question is: What, if anything should the Director do with > the result on the board? >> > +=+ Please bear with me patiently as my mind makes its way > through the thickets. > 1. A violation of law by a spectator is not an 'infraction' > - see Definitions. In passing this tells us that if we adjust scores > we will not be in Law 12B1 territory. > 2. We have decided that the Director will allow completion > of the board, and then consider whether to award an adjusted > score under Law 16C3. > 3. He must judge whether UI may have affected the result > and if so stand ready to adjust the score. If he thinks it at all > possible the player was about to revoke it follows clearly that > the spectator's warning 'may' have affected the result. > 4. The players of both sides are non-offending. He will be > giving each side the better of it. > 5. In Law 12A the phrase applies that says "when these > laws empower him to do so" (as 16C3 does) - it is a situation > additional to the situations listed in 12A1,2,3. > 6. A table result has been obtained; so unless 12C1(d) > applies the adjusted score will be assigned, not artificial. > 7. In knockout team play Law 86B will apply. > ....................................................................................... > Does this satisfy, or is there some objection? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I don't get "He will be giving each side the better of it". I would have thought that the director had to decide what would have happened (and could weight possibilities), but each side got the same score. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 6 23:33:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:33:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Diamonds Are Forever [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Hills, Richard Hills in Diamonds Are Forever Stage One Butler Pairs, Match 10, Board 6 Dlr: East, Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Quail --- --- 1S X 2NT(1) 3D Pass Pass 3S 4D Pass 5D Pass Pass Pass (1) Balanced game invite with spade support You, East, hold: 98762 QT2 --- AQJ93 What is your opening lead? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jul 7 03:12:23 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:12:23 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Diamonds Are Forever [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <87B6F9A08D294B61B1A826AA15F70B13@MARVLAPTOP> > > Hills, Richard Hills > > in > > Diamonds Are Forever > > Stage One Butler Pairs, Match 10, Board 6 > Dlr: East, Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Quail > --- --- 1S X > 2NT(1) 3D Pass Pass > 3S 4D Pass 5D > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Balanced game invite with spade support > > You, East, hold: > > 98762 > QT2 > --- > AQJ93 > > What is your opening lead? > Club queen (sic) Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 8 00:13:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:13:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Diamonds Are Forever [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hills, Richard Hills in Diamonds Are Forever Stage One Butler Pairs, Match 10, Board 6 Dlr: East, Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Quail --- --- 1S X 2NT(1) 3D Pass Pass 3S 4D Pass 5D Pass Pass Pass (1) Balanced game invite with spade support You, East, hold: 98762 QT2 --- AQJ93 What is your opening lead? * * * As is my wont, this is a trick question. This time the trick is that this is not a Laws problem, but rather a bridge problem. * * * At the table East chose the "obvious" lead of the nine of spades. The complete deal: AT3 854 KT8765 8 KQJ4 98762 KJ6 QT2 J943 --- 42 AQJ93 5 A973 AQ2 KT765 Now Hills, Richard Hills demonstrated that he had a licence to kill 4-0 trump breaks. Trick 1: Ace of spades Trick 2: Club to the ace Trick 3: Too-late switch to a heart, won by the ace Trick 4: King of clubs cashed for a heart discard Trick 5: Club ruff Trick 6: Spade ruff Trick 7: Club ruff Trick 8: Spade ruff Trick 9: Ace of diamonds Trick 10: Club ruff Trick 11: Heart exit, East's winner ruffed by West Trick 12: Diamond, marked finesse of the ten Trick 13: King of diamonds +400 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 Jul 8 00:53:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:53:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 31A2, Aussie style [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Definitions: "Denomination - the suit or no trump specified in a bid." Law 31A2 - Bid Out of Rotation - RHO's Turn: "When the offender has called at his RHO's turn to call, then: If that opponent makes a legal* bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call; when this call (a) repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23). (b) does not repeat the denomination of his bid out of rotation, or if the call out of rotation was an artificial pass or a pass of partner's artificial call, the lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23)." During Stage Two and Stage Three of the Australian Butler Pairs (currently in progress at the Aussie winter nationals in Canberra), the ABF permits pairs to use absolutely any bidding system. This means ABF Directors have problematic rulings that ACBL Directors never have the opportunity to encounter. South opens 1D which promises hearts. Alas, the dealer is East. West does not accept South's BOOT and East opens 1S. South now overcalls 2H which promises hearts. Was the denomination of South's 1D diamonds, Law 31A2(b) applies? Was the denomination of South's 1D hearts, Law 31A2(a) applies? The Directors at the Aussie winter nationals were initially baffled, so they sought my advice. I, too, was initially baffled, so the Directors requested me to post this problem to blml. On a closer reading of The Fabulous Law Book, I realised that the problem was not any ambiguity of Law, but rather poor organisation of TFLB. For whatever reason (aesthetics?) the Drafting Committee made an intentional decision to keep cross-references in TFLB to a minimum, instead issuing themselves a Get Out Of Jail Free card in the Introduction: "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." However, the Directors at the Aussie winter nationals would have preferred the Law 31A2 word "denomination" to have been written "denomination*" with the accompanying footnote "* see Law 29C". Law 29C - Call Out of Rotation Is Artificial: "If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than the denomination named." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 8 02:37:58 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 02:37:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 31A2, Aussie style [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c9ff64$58bcf200$0a36d600$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au .................. > South opens 1D which promises hearts. Alas, the dealer is East. > West does not accept South's BOOT and East opens 1S. South now > overcalls 2H which promises hearts. > > Was the denomination of South's 1D diamonds, Law 31A2(b) applies? > Was the denomination of South's 1D hearts, Law 31A2(a) applies? > > The Directors at the Aussie winter nationals were initially > baffled, so they sought my advice. I, too, was initially baffled, > so the Directors requested me to post this problem to blml. > > On a closer reading of The Fabulous Law Book, I realised that the > problem was not any ambiguity of Law, but rather poor organisation > of TFLB. For whatever reason (aesthetics?) the Drafting Committee > made an intentional decision to keep cross-references in TFLB to a > minimum, instead issuing themselves a Get Out Of Jail Free card in > the Introduction: > > "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any > law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." > > However, the Directors at the Aussie winter nationals would have > preferred the Law 31A2 word "denomination" to have been written > "denomination*" with the accompanying footnote "* see Law 29C". > > Law 29C - Call Out of Rotation Is Artificial: > > "If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws > 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than > the denomination named." Frankly i don't understand the problem: When the Director shall deal with a call out of rotation the very first law he must apply is Law 29 which among other provisions contain the provision quoted above. It is a serious tournament director's error if he goes directly to either of laws 30, 31 or 32 without first applying Law 29 so the above suggested footnote should be completely redundant. I am surprised to read that directors at this apparent level should be "baffled" over a law that was kept unchanged from the 1997 laws. How do you train your directors? Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 8 09:11:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:11:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 31A2, Aussie style [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c9ff64$58bcf200$0a36d600$@no> Message-ID: <001d01c9ff9b$6238e780$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31A2, Aussie style [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > .................. >> South opens 1D which promises hearts. Alas, the dealer is East. >> West does not accept South's BOOT and East opens 1S. South now >> overcalls 2H which promises hearts. >> >> Was the denomination of South's 1D diamonds, Law 31A2(b) applies? >> Was the denomination of South's 1D hearts, Law 31A2(a) applies? >> >> The Directors at the Aussie winter nationals were initially >> baffled, so they sought my advice. I, too, was initially baffled, >> so the Directors requested me to post this problem to blml. >> >> On a closer reading of The Fabulous Law Book, I realised that the >> problem was not any ambiguity of Law, but rather poor organisation >> of TFLB. For whatever reason (aesthetics?) the Drafting Committee >> made an intentional decision to keep cross-references in TFLB to a >> minimum, instead issuing themselves a Get Out Of Jail Free card in >> the Introduction: >> >> "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any >> law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." >> >> However, the Directors at the Aussie winter nationals would have >> preferred the Law 31A2 word "denomination" to have been written >> "denomination*" with the accompanying footnote "* see Law 29C". >> >> Law 29C - Call Out of Rotation Is Artificial: >> >> "If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws >> 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than >> the denomination named." > > Frankly i don't understand the problem: > > When the Director shall deal with a call out of rotation the > very first law he must apply is Law 29 which among other > provisions contains the provision quoted above. > > It is a serious tournament director's error if he goes directly > to either of laws 30, 31 or 32 without first applying Law 29 > so the above suggested footnote should be completely redundant. > > I am surprised to read that directors at this apparent level should > be "baffled" over a law that was kept unchanged from the 1997 > laws. How do you train your directors? > > Regards Sven > +=+ There is another 'Get out of Gaol Free Card'. We also removed the division into Chapters and Sections. It cannot be suggested that a Law does not apply because it is within a particular Chapter or Section. This was another deliberate decision. As to Richard's case, I too am astonished that Directors should jump to Laws 30, 31, 32, without first going to the Law dealing with the problem they have in front of them. The reverse flow of the water may have something to do with hemispheric inversion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Jul 8 09:22:08 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:22:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls Message-ID: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Teams, Dealer East Q x A K x x x x A K x A Q J T x x x A K x x x Q x x W N E S - - 1NT (p) (15-17) 3C ! (p) 3NT (p) * 4NT (p) 5S (p) 6NT all pass * South asked for an explanation of 3C und received the answer "invitational for 3NT with length in Clubs". NS summoned the TD after play ended and criticized the use of UI by West. The German regulations have a rule that may be translated as: "After an alert, a player may chose whether to ask for an explanation of the alerted call or not (see Law 20F). A player should postpone questions, where the answer has no influence on his call to make, until the bidding is concluded and (should the occasion arise) partner has lead face down." Normally the German regulation use the terms "should" etc. in the same way as "defined" in the Laws. So, "should" implies here an infraction if not followed. But Law 20 F1 says that the player has the right to ask. And to claim this right can never be an infraction IMO. On the other hand, South' action (first asking and afterwards claiming use of UI) looks like the purposeful (and working) attempt to "damage" opponents, which is not the way we (I) want bridge to be played. How do other authorities treat this (problem)? Regards, Peter From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 8 09:58:17 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:58:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001c9ffa1$db190f80$914b2e80$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > Teams, Dealer East > > Q x A K x > x x x A K x > A Q J T x x x > A K x x x Q x x > > W N E S > - - 1NT (p) (15-17) > 3C ! (p) 3NT (p) * > 4NT (p) 5S (p) > 6NT all pass > > * South asked for an explanation of 3C und received the answer > "invitational for 3NT with length in Clubs". > > NS summoned the TD after play ended and criticized the use > of UI by West. > > The German regulations have a rule that may be translated as: > "After an alert, a player may chose whether to ask for an > explanation of the alerted call or not (see Law 20F). A player > should postpone questions, where the answer has no > influence on his call to make, until the bidding is concluded > and (should the occasion arise) partner has lead face down." > > Normally the German regulation use the terms "should" etc. > in the same way as "defined" in the Laws. So, "should" implies > here an infraction if not followed. But Law 20 F1 says that the > player has the right to ask. And to claim this right can never > be an infraction IMO. > > On the other hand, South' action (first asking and afterwards > claiming use of UI) looks like the purposeful (and working) > attempt to "damage" opponents, which is not the way we (I) > want bridge to be played. > > How do other authorities treat this (problem)? UI? What UI and what should be suggested by the UI? (South's question can certainly create UI for North, but not for EW.) I suppose 3C is invitational to slam, not to just game? (Can East pass the 3C bid?) In West I would only have one "problem" when partner opens 1NT: Shall we play in 6C or in 6NT? Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 8 09:59:32 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:59:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A5451E4.7000308@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Teams, Dealer East > > Q x A K x > x x x A K x > A Q J T x x x > A K x x x Q x x > > W N E S > - - 1NT (p) (15-17) > 3C ! (p) 3NT (p) * > 4NT (p) 5S (p) > 6NT all pass > > * South asked for an explanation of 3C und received the answer > "invitational for 3NT with length in Clubs". > > NS summoned the TD after play ended and criticized the use > of UI by West. > > The German regulations have a rule that may be translated as: > "After an alert, a player may chose whether to ask for an > explanation of the alerted call or not (see Law 20F). A player > should postpone questions, where the answer has no > influence on his call to make, until the bidding is concluded > and (should the occasion arise) partner has lead face down." > > Normally the German regulation use the terms "should" etc. > in the same way as "defined" in the Laws. So, "should" implies > here an infraction if not followed. But Law 20 F1 says that the > player has the right to ask. And to claim this right can never > be an infraction IMO. > > On the other hand, South' action (first asking and afterwards > claiming use of UI) looks like the purposeful (and working) > attempt to "damage" opponents, which is not the way we (I) > want bridge to be played. > > How do other authorities treat this (problem)? > AG : the question was indeed mistimed, as partner hadn't passed yet, and there could have been UI problems for NS too. Just imagine North is contemplating a lead-directing double. (3C needn't show a long suit ; I knwo some pairs who use it as forcing Stayman) Now, West made use of UI, since, after East's negative answer of 3NT, pass is more than just a LA. If you consider 'should' to be a strong demand, then you can always split the score, as EW infracted the law and NS contrbuted to their bad score. But IMOBO the German law is unwise, because it reiforces the UI effect from questions : it means that, whenever a player asks, their partner will know they're interested in bidding. I often ask questions routinely, without any specific interest. This has the beneficial effect of .minimizing UI - a big concern for me. Best regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 8 10:10:00 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:10:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <000001c9ffa1$db190f80$914b2e80$@no> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9ffa1$db190f80$914b2e80$@no> Message-ID: <4A545458.4000002@t-online.de> Sven Pran schrieb: > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt >> Teams, Dealer East >> >> Q x A K x >> x x x A K x >> A Q J T x x x >> A K x x x Q x x >> >> W N E S >> - - 1NT (p) (15-17) >> 3C ! (p) 3NT (p) * >> 4NT (p) 5S (p) >> 6NT all pass >> >> * South asked for an explanation of 3C und received the answer >> "invitational for 3NT with length in Clubs". >> >> NS summoned the TD after play ended and criticized the use >> of UI by West. >> >> The German regulations have a rule that may be translated as: >> "After an alert, a player may chose whether to ask for an >> explanation of the alerted call or not (see Law 20F). A player >> should postpone questions, where the answer has no >> influence on his call to make, until the bidding is concluded >> and (should the occasion arise) partner has lead face down." >> >> Normally the German regulation use the terms "should" etc. >> in the same way as "defined" in the Laws. So, "should" implies >> here an infraction if not followed. But Law 20 F1 says that the >> player has the right to ask. And to claim this right can never >> be an infraction IMO. >> >> On the other hand, South' action (first asking and afterwards >> claiming use of UI) looks like the purposeful (and working) >> attempt to "damage" opponents, which is not the way we (I) >> want bridge to be played. >> >> How do other authorities treat this (problem)? > > UI? What UI and what should be suggested by the UI? (South's question can > certainly create UI for North, but not for EW.) > > I suppose 3C is invitational to slam, not to just game? (Can East pass the > 3C bid?) East believed that he could, so the UI is that East holds a maximum with some fit, rather than a minimum without a fit. > > In West I would only have one "problem" when partner opens 1NT: Shall we > play in 6C or in 6NT? How about 3NT opposite AKxx, KJxx, Kxx. Jx? Looks high enough to me. Even 4NT might not make on a bad day. Regards Matthias > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 8 10:58:00 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:58:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <000001c9ffa1$db190f80$914b2e80$@no> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9ffa1$db190f80$914b2e80$@no> Message-ID: <4A545F98.9010504@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > >> Teams, Dealer East >> >> Q x A K x >> x x x A K x >> A Q J T x x x >> A K x x x Q x x >> >> W N E S >> - - 1NT (p) (15-17) >> 3C ! (p) 3NT (p) * >> 4NT (p) 5S (p) >> 6NT all pass >> >> * >> > > UI? What UI and what should be suggested by the UI? (South's question can > certainly create UI for North, but not for EW.) > AG : UI was provided by East, in his erroneous response to the question, that his 3NT bid was intended as positive for clubs, rather than negative. > I suppose 3C is invitational to slam, not to just game? (Can East pass the > 3C bid?) > > In West I would only have one "problem" when partner opens 1NT: Shall we > play in 6C or in 6NT? > AG : not if East held KJx - AKJ - Kxxx - xxx, as his 3NT bid over a *strong* 3C shows. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jul 8 12:10:39 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:10:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <4A5451E4.7000308@ulb.ac.be> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4A5451E4.7000308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1B29FA6A-CB70-420B-9281-0AE01325E665@btinternet.com> On 8 Jul 2009, at 08:59, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Now, West made use of UI, since, after East's negative answer of 3NT, > pass is more than just a LA. I'd expect East to bid 3NT with any hand without club support, whether minimum or maximum, so 6NT is still a distinct possibility and 4NT now seems automatic. I don't think pass is an LA. Gordon Rainsford From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 8 15:53:40 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:53:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <34644B4D-F222-4FBD-A119-77A5F77D73B0@starpower.net> On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:22 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > Teams, Dealer East > > Q x A K x > x x x A K x > A Q J T x x x > A K x x x Q x x > > W N E S > - - 1NT (p) (15-17) > 3C ! (p) 3NT (p) * > 4NT (p) 5S (p) > 6NT all pass > > * South asked for an explanation of 3C und received the answer > "invitational for 3NT with length in Clubs". > > NS summoned the TD after play ended and criticized the use > of UI by West. Did West use the UI from East's explanation of 3C? Since he intended 3C as forcing, 3NT would have been discouraging. Is pass an LA? It's close. If you decide not, case closed. > The German regulations have a rule that may be translated as: > "After an alert, a player may chose whether to ask for an > explanation of the alerted call or not (see Law 20F). A player > should postpone questions, where the answer has no > influence on his call to make, until the bidding is concluded > and (should the occasion arise) partner has lead face down." I don't like this regulation, but that's another story. In this case, though, I cannot find South at fault; his violation appears to be a trivial technicality. West made an ostensibly invitational call and East accepted to 3NT. Absent some violation -- either East having mixexplained 3C or West having "used" the UI from East's explanation -- the auction is over and it's South's lead. > Normally the German regulation use the terms "should" etc. > in the same way as "defined" in the Laws. So, "should" implies > here an infraction if not followed. But Law 20 F1 says that the > player has the right to ask. And to claim this right can never > be an infraction IMO. The WBF has historically treated L80B2(f) as a no-op, so while Peter is fully justified by the words in TFLB in saying that this should never be an infraction, the German authorities nevertheless have the practical power to make it so. That being the case, it is up to those same authorities to decide whether violating this regulation may abrogate one's right to redress if the opponents exchange UI in the course of replying to it (indeed, the regulation may only permit them to refuse to answer, in which case they presumably answer at their own risk). Absent guidance, it sounds like the regulation is there to prevent the exchange of UI by the questioning side. As that's not an issue here, I don't think the mistiming of the question should have any effect on the outcome. > On the other hand, South' action (first asking and afterwards > claiming use of UI) looks like the purposeful (and working) > attempt to "damage" opponents, which is not the way we (I) > want bridge to be played. Nonsense. South's action is explained 100% by his fully justified misimpression that he was about to be on lead against 3NT. For there to be even the slightest possibility of a L73F violation here, there would need to be evidence that South knew that E-W were having a bidding mixup and that West was about to take an "impossible" further bid. > How do other authorities treat this (problem)? By not making regulations that conflict directly with L20F1. More generally, by following L80B2(f) voluntarily, despite knowing that TPTB have given them carte blanche to ignore it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 8 16:51:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:51:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4A5451E4.7000308@ulb.ac.be> <1B29FA6A-CB70-420B-9281-0AE01325E665@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <002e01c9ffdb$9dc40600$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls > > On 8 Jul 2009, at 08:59, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Now, West made use of UI, since, after East's negative answer >> of 3NT, pass is more than just a LA. > > I'd expect East to bid 3NT with any hand without club support, > whether minimum or maximum, so 6NT is still a distinct possibility > and 4NT now seems automatic. I don't think pass is an LA. > +=+ I am having a bit of a problem getting a grip on this dialogue. What is it that is being suggested? If South asks a question about the meaning of the auction it does not convey UI to EW about the meaning of their calls. If East responds with an accurate statement of the partnership methods there is no extraneous information passed to West who knew what their methods were before he took his hand from the board [Law 16A1(d)] - there is no evidence that he did not, that he had forgotten system. So what am I missing? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 8 20:02:50 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:02:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <002e01c9ffdb$9dc40600$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4A5451E4.7000308@ulb.ac.be> <1B29FA6A-CB70-420B-9281-0AE01325E665@btinternet.com> <002e01c9ffdb$9dc40600$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A54DF4A.7040802@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "A sword never kills anybody; > it's a tool in the killer's hand." > [Seneca] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Rainsford" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:10 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls > > >> On 8 Jul 2009, at 08:59, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> Now, West made use of UI, since, after East's negative answer >>> of 3NT, pass is more than just a LA. >> I'd expect East to bid 3NT with any hand without club support, >> whether minimum or maximum, so 6NT is still a distinct possibility >> and 4NT now seems automatic. I don't think pass is an LA. >> > +=+ I am having a bit of a problem getting a grip on this dialogue. > What is it that is being suggested? If South asks a question about > the meaning of the auction it does not convey UI to EW about the > meaning of their calls. If East responds with an accurate statement > of the partnership methods there is no extraneous information > passed to West who knew what their methods were before he took > his hand from the board [Law 16A1(d)] - there is no evidence that > he did not, that he had forgotten system. > So what am I missing? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ There is a discrepancy between the answer (game invitation with clubs) and the actual hand (slam invitation with clubs), so independent from the true systemic meaning West got the UI that East held a maximum and a fit, instead of a minimum and no fit. Whether East responded with an accurate explanation or not seems irrelevant to me. Wrong explanation was not an issue in this case (as far as I know). West thought he had sent an slam invitation, East had responded to a game invitation ( or so he thought). Best regards Matthias > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jul 8 20:09:37 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:09:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <002e01c9ffdb$9dc40600$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4A5451E4.7000308@ulb.ac.be> <1B29FA6A-CB70-420B-9281-0AE01325E665@btinternet.com> <002e01c9ffdb$9dc40600$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <380C23B7-361C-4EE2-94B0-41970CF1F017@btinternet.com> On 8 Jul 2009, at 15:51, Grattan wrote: > If East responds with an accurate statement > of the partnership methods there is no extraneous information > passed to West who knew what their methods were before he took > his hand from the board [Law 16A1(d)] - there is no evidence that > he did not, that he had forgotten system. > So what am I missing? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Clearly one or other of them has got it wrong, and West has UI as to what East thinks the bid meant. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jul 8 20:13:46 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:13:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <4A54DF4A.7040802@t-online.de> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <4A5451E4.7000308@ulb.ac.be> <1B29FA6A-CB70-420B-9281-0AE01325E665@btinternet.com> <002e01c9ffdb$9dc40600$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A54DF4A.7040802@t-online.de> Message-ID: <506F2E84-B9EB-421D-9C64-C9ECFA019245@btinternet.com> On 8 Jul 2009, at 19:02, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > West got the UI that East held a maximum and a > fit, instead of a minimum and no fit. I wonder what you think East would do with a maximum & no fit, or a minimum and a fit? It might be more accurate to say that the UI is that East has a maximum OR a fit, rather than a minimum with no fit. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090708/fd92ede5/attachment.html From jkljkl at gmx.de Wed Jul 8 20:47:57 2009 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (Stefan Filonardi) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:47:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <34644B4D-F222-4FBD-A119-77A5F77D73B0@starpower.net> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <34644B4D-F222-4FBD-A119-77A5F77D73B0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A54E9DD.1090101@gmx.de> Hello Eric, Eric Landau schrieb: > On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:22 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > >> Teams, Dealer East >> >> Q x A K x >> x x x A K x >> A Q J T x x x >> A K x x x Q x x >> >> W N E S >> - - 1NT (p) (15-17) >> 3C ! (p) 3NT (p) * >> 4NT (p) 5S (p) >> 6NT all pass >> >> * South asked for an explanation of 3C und received the answer >> "invitational for 3NT with length in Clubs". >> >> NS summoned the TD after play ended and criticized the use >> of UI by West. >> On the other hand, South' action (first asking and afterwards >> claiming use of UI) looks like the purposeful (and working) >> attempt to "damage" opponents, which is not the way we (I) >> want bridge to be played. > > Nonsense. South's action is explained 100% by his fully justified > misimpression that he was about to be on lead against 3NT. How could South guess that the auction is over not knowing the meaning of 3C? > For there > to be even the slightest possibility of a L73F violation here, there > would need to be evidence that South knew that E-W were having a > bidding mixup and that West was about to take an "impossible" further > bid. With some table presence I think many player get a feeling about opponents having a problem in the bidding. So the question remain, how do we handle a player that has no bridge reason to ask but has nothing to lose since a) he is likely on lead b) no TD will think about UI since he helds xxxx xxx xxx xxx On the other side he has the possibility to gain if opponents give a wrong explanation. (as here 6NT back to 3NT+3) ciao stefan germany From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 8 21:48:05 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:48:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <4A54E9DD.1090101@gmx.de> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <34644B4D-F222-4FBD-A119-77A5F77D73B0@starpower.net> <4A54E9DD.1090101@gmx.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:47:57 -0400, Stefan Filonardi wrote: > Hello Eric, > > Eric Landau schrieb: >> On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:22 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> Teams, Dealer East >>> >>> Q x A K x >>> x x x A K x >>> A Q J T x x x >>> A K x x x Q x x >>> >>> W N E S >>> - - 1NT (p) (15-17) >>> 3C ! (p) 3NT (p) * >>> 4NT (p) 5S (p) >>> 6NT all pass >>> >>> * South asked for an explanation of 3C und received the answer >>> "invitational for 3NT with length in Clubs". >>> >>> NS summoned the TD after play ended and criticized the use >>> of UI by West. > >>> On the other hand, South' action (first asking and afterwards >>> claiming use of UI) looks like the purposeful (and working) >>> attempt to "damage" opponents, which is not the way we (I) >>> want bridge to be played. >> >> Nonsense. South's action is explained 100% by his fully justified >> misimpression that he was about to be on lead against 3NT. > > How could South guess that the auction is over not knowing the > meaning of 3C? > >> For there >> to be even the slightest possibility of a L73F violation here, there >> would need to be evidence that South knew that E-W were having a >> bidding mixup and that West was about to take an "impossible" further >> bid. > > With some table presence I think many player get a feeling about > opponents having a problem in the bidding. > > So the question remain, how do we handle a player that has no bridge > reason to ask but > > has nothing to lose since > a) he is likely on lead > b) no TD will think about UI since he helds xxxx xxx xxx xxx > > On the other side he has the possibility to gain if opponents give a > wrong explanation. (as here 6NT back to 3NT+3) Another reason I often ask is so I can follow the auction as it is unfolding. I think I have a better chance of remembering the auction this way, and I certainly get more thinking time. I am not sure about hesitations, but no one ever includes them in the review of the bidding, so if I want to use them, I have to do it as the auction unfolds. I would also guess that the chance of catching the opponents in a wrong explanation is swamped by the chance that they are more confident in their bidding because they hear the confirming explanations, not to mention the chance that an explanation gets them on track and I never learn about it. So if I did think the opponents were having a problem in the bidding, I would probably try not to ask about it. I don't know if that's the best strategy, but that's what I would do. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 8 22:48:21 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 16:48:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <4A54E9DD.1090101@gmx.de> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <34644B4D-F222-4FBD-A119-77A5F77D73B0@starpower.net> <4A54E9DD.1090101@gmx.de> Message-ID: <562C8690-39EF-4F26-A484-123EA1CEF0C6@starpower.net> On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Stefan Filonardi wrote: > Eric Landau schrieb: > >> On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:22 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> Teams, Dealer East >>> >>> Q x A K x >>> x x x A K x >>> A Q J T x x x >>> A K x x x Q x x >>> >>> W N E S >>> - - 1NT (p) (15-17) >>> 3C ! (p) 3NT (p) * >>> 4NT (p) 5S (p) >>> 6NT all pass >>> >>> * South asked for an explanation of 3C und received the answer >>> "invitational for 3NT with length in Clubs". >>> >>> NS summoned the TD after play ended and criticized the use >>> of UI by West. >>> >>> On the other hand, South' action (first asking and afterwards >>> claiming use of UI) looks like the purposeful (and working) >>> attempt to "damage" opponents, which is not the way we (I) >>> want bridge to be played. >> >> Nonsense. South's action is explained 100% by his fully justified >> misimpression that he was about to be on lead against 3NT. > > How could South guess that the auction is over not knowing the > meaning of 3C? He did "know". Peter writes, "South asked for an explanation of 3C und received the answer 'invitational for 3NT with length in Clubs'." >> For there >> to be even the slightest possibility of a L73F violation here, there >> would need to be evidence that South knew that E-W were having a >> bidding mixup and that West was about to take an "impossible" further >> bid. > > With some table presence I think many player get a feeling about > opponents having a problem in the bidding. When you are unable to follow the opponents' bidding, they may or may not be having a problem. Your table feel will tell you that something is amiss, but unless you know as much or more about their methods as they do, your natural assumption (the simplest) is that you're just not following. Which is precisely when you need to ask, else forego the chance to follow along understanding what is most likely to be a perfectly systemic auction. > So the question remain, how do we handle a player that has no bridge > reason to ask but Wanting to be able to follow the opponents' auction and understand it as it goes along is a perfectly valid "bridge reason". Listening carefully as they go, understanding their choices, and developing a picture of their likely holdings, even as they do the same, is a habit and a skill acquired by experts that separates them from the duffers. Only a player with absolutely zero table feel could believe that asking questions after the auction is over -- even asking at such length in such detail as to risk grievous annoyance and ethical concerns -- is any substitute for the sort of feeling for the auction that one can get in real time if one is properly informed. > has nothing to lose since > a) he is likely on lead > b) no TD will think about UI since he helds xxxx xxx xxx xxx What you have to lose is the ability to integrate the knowledge you may obtain prior to the time at which you would be given the background necessary to do so. "OK, now that I know what it all means, may I please hear it again, with all the intonations, expressions, pauses, emphases, coughs and sniffs, tics and tells, etc. etc. that were there the first time?" Even if that were a legitimate request, it would be patently impossible to fulfill. > On the other side he has the possibility to gain if opponents give a > wrong explanation. (as here 6NT back to 3NT+3) Nothing (else) to lose? What about this case? Are we so sure that West wouldn't have passed 3NT absent the EI from partner that (he thought) 3C was invitational? Are we so sure that the AC won't decide that he has no LA to bidding over 3NT? Are our legal procedures so airtight that it is never any better for one's opponents' to have avoided exchanging UI in the first place? Nobody in his right mind deliberately offers their opponents an extra-legal advantage in expectation of being over-compensated by the legal authorities for their taking advantage of it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 9 04:37:17 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 03:37:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de><34644B4D-F222-4FBD-A119-77A5F77D73B0@starpower.net><4A54E9DD.1090101@gmx.de> Message-ID: <001f01ca003e$32db36c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 8:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls > On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:47:57 -0400, Stefan Filonardi > wrote: > >> Hello Eric, >> >> Eric Landau schrieb: >>> On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:22 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: >>> >>>> Teams, Dealer East >>>> >>>> Q x A K x >>>> x x x A K x >>>> A Q J T x x x >>>> A K x x x Q x x >>>> >>>> W N E S >>>> - - 1NT (p) (15-17) >>>> 3C ! (p) 3NT (p) * >>>> 4NT (p) 5S (p) >>>> 6NT all pass >>>> >>>> * South asked for an explanation of 3C und received the answer >>>> "invitational for 3NT with length in Clubs". >>>> >>>> NS summoned the TD after play ended and criticized the use >>>> of UI by West. >> >>>> On the other hand, South' action (first asking and afterwards >>>> claiming use of UI) looks like the purposeful (and working) >>>> attempt to "damage" opponents, which is not the way we (I) >>>> want bridge to be played. >>> >>> Nonsense. South's action is explained 100% by his fully justified >>> misimpression that he was about to be on lead against 3NT. >> >> How could South guess that the auction is over not knowing the >> meaning of 3C? >> >>> For there >>> to be even the slightest possibility of a L73F violation here, there >>> would need to be evidence that South knew that E-W were having a >>> bidding mixup and that West was about to take an "impossible" further >>> bid. >> >> With some table presence I think many player get a feeling about >> opponents having a problem in the bidding. >> >> So the question remain, how do we handle a player that has no bridge >> reason to ask but >> >> has nothing to lose since >> a) he is likely on lead >> b) no TD will think about UI since he helds xxxx xxx xxx xxx >> >> On the other side he has the possibility to gain if opponents give a >> wrong explanation. (as here 6NT back to 3NT+3) > > Another reason I often ask is so I can follow the auction as it is > unfolding. I think I have a better chance of remembering the auction this > way, and I certainly get more thinking time. I am not sure about > hesitations, but no one ever includes them in the review of the bidding, > so if I want to use them, I have to do it as the auction unfolds. > > I would also guess that the chance of catching the opponents in a wrong > explanation is swamped by the chance that they are more confident in their > bidding because they hear the confirming explanations, not to mention the > chance that an explanation gets them on track and I never learn about it. > So if I did think the opponents were having a problem in the bidding, I > would probably try not to ask about it. I don't know if that's the best > strategy, but that's what I would do. > +=+ The question is not new. The last time it was raised in the WBFLC a number of members were horrified by the suggestion that a RA was seeking to place a restriction on a question that the law allows. If the Director considers the questioner knows the answer before he asks, or knows there is something askew and is drawing attention to it, the Director may ask himself why the player asked the question and he may perhaps decide there is justification for acting under Law 20G1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jul 9 08:14:15 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:14:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Absence of the old 11B Message-ID: Is there any reason for the old L11B to be taken out of the laws? Speculation? Grattan? That law seems fair. It seems appropriate that players cannot be helped by their friends. And it would solve otherwise difficult rulings when it could be applied. RA's and Tournament Sponsors can just add it back, unless there is some reason not to. But that seems a little cumbersome. Bob Old L11B: "1. The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table the non-offending side is responsible. 2. The right to correct an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table the offending side is responsible." From lskelso at ihug.com.au Thu Jul 9 13:53:40 2009 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:53:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 31A2, Aussie style [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001d01c9ff9b$6238e780$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000001c9ff64$58bcf200$0a36d600$@no> <001d01c9ff9b$6238e780$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <200907091154.n69BskgS009409@auumvs2fe01.three.com.au> I don't think it has anything to do with reverse flow (although I too am surprised that a colleague would overlook Law 29 given the growing prevalence of 1-level transfer openings and responses in this sort of environment). With regard to hemispheric inversion: I have just experienced the hot climes of a Northern Summer in Macau, however I will soon have to cope with a 35 degree shift in ambient temperature - when I arrive tomorrow (a week late) for the second phase of this particular event. Laurie At 05:11 PM 8/07/2009, Grattan wrote: >Grattan Endicottalso ********************************** >"A sword never kills anybody; >it's a tool in the killer's hand." > [Seneca] >********************************** > As to Richard's case, I too am astonished that Directors >should jump to Laws 30, 31, 32, without first going to the >Law dealing with the problem they have in front of them. The >reverse flow of the water may have something to do with >hemispheric inversion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 9 16:08:51 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:08:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <001f01ca003e$32db36c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de><34644B4D-F222-4FBD-A119-77A5F77D73B0@starpower.net><4A54E9DD.1090101@gmx.de> <001f01ca003e$32db36c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <0A5B2169-F563-4A89-B96C-83EA418A91EB@starpower.net> On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" > >> Another reason I often ask is so I can follow the auction as it is >> unfolding. I think I have a better chance of remembering the >> auction this >> way, and I certainly get more thinking time. I am not sure about >> hesitations, but no one ever includes them in the review of the >> bidding, >> so if I want to use them, I have to do it as the auction unfolds. >> >> I would also guess that the chance of catching the opponents in a >> wrong >> explanation is swamped by the chance that they are more confident >> in their >> bidding because they hear the confirming explanations, not to >> mention the >> chance that an explanation gets them on track and I never learn >> about it. >> So if I did think the opponents were having a problem in the >> bidding, I >> would probably try not to ask about it. I don't know if that's the >> best >> strategy, but that's what I would do. > > +=+ The question is not new. The last time it was raised > in the WBFLC a number of members were horrified by > the suggestion that a RA was seeking to place a restriction > on a question that the law allows. If the Director considers > the questioner knows the answer before he asks, or knows > there is something askew and is drawing attention to it, the > Director may ask himself why the player asked the question > and he may perhaps decide there is justification for acting > under Law 20G1. That works, but only if the adjudicators are careful to distinguish between an insufficient negative finding (no "bridge reason" for the action) and a sufficient positive one (some "non-bridge reason" for the action). The discussions in this forum of the German and English regulations on the subject, however, give me no reason to think anyone is doing this. And I'm not sure we can -- we've seen this problem before: We have a few players who indulge in some questionable, arguably unethical, practice (such as asking questions to which they know the answers in the hope of getting their opponents into UI situations) which we would like to put a stop to. We know who they are. But we cannot take direct action against them on the basis of what evidence we have, as our evidence is not up to courtroom standards and we fear being sued. So having proposed a regulation that says, in straightforward language, "You can't do that," we give it to the lawyers, who translate it into hopefully lawsuit-proof legalese by sprinkling it with "could have"s and "might have"s. This permits us to throw the bums out (or, hopefully, penalize them into changing their ways) without actually accusing them of any specific wrongdoing, which is what we wanted. But then well-meaning folks come along and, unaware of history and ignorant of the original objective, carefully parse the legal language, which, read literally, says not, "You can't do that," but rather "You can't do anything that might look like doing that." With that reading, they use the regulation to penalize what they know to be innocent parties, despite their own certainty that those folks are in fact not in any way attempting to get away with anything questionable, and we lose the baby with the bathwater. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 9 16:36:36 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:36:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Absence of the old 11B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89D9164F-35BA-4134-B676-2CB1CDF3C8D2@starpower.net> On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:14 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Is there any reason for the old L11B to be taken out of the laws? > Speculation? Grattan? That law seems fair. It seems appropriate that > players cannot be helped by their friends. And it would solve > otherwise > difficult rulings when it could be applied. > > RA's and Tournament Sponsors can just add it back, unless there is > some > reason not to. But that seems a little cumbersome. > > Old L11B: "1. The right to penalize an irregularity may be > forfeited if > attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose > presence at the table the non-offending side is responsible. 2. The > right > to correct an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is first > drawn to > the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table the > offending side is responsible." I'll speculate. The typical kibitzer at a major tournament walks into the playing room, spots a pair he knows playing against strangers, and sits down behind one of them to watch. Nobody invited him, but he is nonetheless "attached" to -- partial to and rooting for -- one side rather than the other (which, depending on his deportment, may or may not be apparent). Had a different pair been at the table he would not be there. So does that make that pair "responsible" for his presence, despite the fact that they did nothing to encourage it, that he chose to be there entirely on his own? I suspect that this question gave more than a few adjudicators more than a few headaches, and they got tired of dealing with it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 10 14:09:38 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:09:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Absence of the old 11B In-Reply-To: <89D9164F-35BA-4134-B676-2CB1CDF3C8D2@starpower.net> References: <89D9164F-35BA-4134-B676-2CB1CDF3C8D2@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:36:36 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:14 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Is there any reason for the old L11B to be taken out of the laws? >> Speculation? Grattan? That law seems fair. It seems appropriate that >> players cannot be helped by their friends. And it would solve >> otherwise >> difficult rulings when it could be applied. >> >> RA's and Tournament Sponsors can just add it back, unless there is >> some >> reason not to. But that seems a little cumbersome. >> >> Old L11B: "1. The right to penalize an irregularity may be >> forfeited if >> attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose >> presence at the table the non-offending side is responsible. 2. The >> right >> to correct an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is first >> drawn to >> the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table the >> offending side is responsible." > > I'll speculate. The typical kibitzer at a major tournament walks > into the playing room, spots a pair he knows playing against > strangers, and sits down behind one of them to watch. Nobody invited > him, but he is nonetheless "attached" to -- partial to and rooting > for -- one side rather than the other (which, depending on his > deportment, may or may not be apparent). Had a different pair been > at the table he would not be there. So does that make that pair > "responsible" for his presence, despite the fact that they did > nothing to encourage it, that he chose to be there entirely on his own? > > I suspect that this question gave more than a few adjudicators more > than a few headaches, and they got tired of dealing with it. I do appreciate the answer, even though I am going to argue it isn't a good reason. First, I think any director would want to take into account the association of the offending kibitzer in making a ruling. And I think the players would be sympathetic to that. Second, it can be very difficult to decide what would have happened had an irregularity not been pointed out, as this example shows. Creating an "offending side" for the purposes of resolving doubtful points is very handy. So it seems that the absence of the old 11B makes the director's task harder, not easier. I looked up "responsible" in my dictionary. Definition #1 seems to apply: "Answerable legally or morally for the discarge of a duty, trust, or debt." Of course, "legally" is circular, but "morally" isn't. I wouldn't have any trouble deciding that a pair is not responsible for kibitzers they don't know. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 11 08:53:44 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 02:53:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To accept or not accept ceclarer's LOOT Message-ID: Yesterday, declarer led from hand when he was in dummy. One defender rejected the lead from the wrong hand, while shortly thereafter the other defender accepted it (by playing a card). L53A: "It [a lead faced out of turn] becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead." So a defender accepted the lead, making it the correct lead. L55B2: "If declarer has led from the wrong hand when it was his turn to lead from his hand or dummy's, and if either defender requires him to retract the lead, he withdraws the card led in error. He must lead from the correct hand." So, because a defender required him to retract the lead, he has to retract the card led and lead from the correct hand. L55A: "If the defenders choose differently, the option expressed by the defender next in turn to the hand from which the card was led out of turn shall prevail." Next in turn was to accept the lead from the wrong hand. My Version: Next-in-turn decides whether to accept or reject the LOOT. Before deciding, next-in-turn may hears partner's decision. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 11 09:43:52 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:43:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] To accept or not accept ceclarer's LOOT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001ca01fb$565e4c40$031ae4c0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Subject: [BLML] To accept or not accept ceclarer's LOOT > > Yesterday, declarer led from hand when he was in dummy. One defender > rejected the lead from the wrong hand, while shortly thereafter the other > defender accepted it (by playing a card). > > L53A: "It [a lead faced out of turn] becomes a correct lead if declarer or > either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to > that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the > irregular lead." > > So a defender accepted the lead, making it the correct lead. > > L55B2: "If declarer has led from the wrong hand when it was his turn to > lead from his hand or dummy's, and if either defender requires him to > retract the lead, he withdraws the card led in error. He must lead from > the correct hand." > > So, because a defender required him to retract the lead, he has to retract > the card led and lead from the correct hand. > > L55A: "If the defenders choose differently, the option expressed by the > defender next in turn to the hand from which the card was led out of turn > shall prevail." > > Next in turn was to accept the lead from the wrong hand. > > My Version: Next-in-turn decides whether to accept or reject the LOOT. > Before deciding, next-in-turn may hears partner's decision. Law 10C2: If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner. Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 11 16:05:21 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:05:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To accept or not accept ceclarer's LOOT In-Reply-To: <000001ca01fb$565e4c40$031ae4c0$@no> References: <000001ca01fb$565e4c40$031ae4c0$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:43:52 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> Subject: [BLML] To accept or not accept ceclarer's LOOT >> >> Yesterday, declarer led from hand when he was in dummy. One defender >> rejected the lead from the wrong hand, while shortly thereafter the >> other >> defender accepted it (by playing a card). >> >> L53A: "It [a lead faced out of turn] becomes a correct lead if declarer >> or >> either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to >> that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the >> irregular lead." >> >> So a defender accepted the lead, making it the correct lead. >> >> L55B2: "If declarer has led from the wrong hand when it was his turn to >> lead from his hand or dummy's, and if either defender requires him to >> retract the lead, he withdraws the card led in error. He must lead from >> the correct hand." >> >> So, because a defender required him to retract the lead, he has to >> retract >> the card led and lead from the correct hand. >> >> L55A: "If the defenders choose differently, the option expressed by the >> defender next in turn to the hand from which the card was led out of >> turn >> shall prevail." >> >> Next in turn was to accept the lead from the wrong hand. >> >> My Version: Next-in-turn decides whether to accept or reject the LOOT. >> Before deciding, next-in-turn may hears partner's decision. > > Law 10C2: If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make > his > selection without consulting partner. And "...either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or rquire its retraction..." (Law 55A) From adam at tameware.com Sat Jul 11 17:30:43 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:30:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chapter Headings (was: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty) Message-ID: <694eadd40907110830s1e9870f8t371126bb5e3e8b9f@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > Adam W wrote: > ?> L23 is now part of Chapter V - The Auction. > > As others have mentioned, the chapters are gone except in the ACBL version. > > > Did the drafting committee intend for it to apply to the play > > also? > > ?From the Introduction: "Where headings remain they do not limit the > application of any law...." ?Or did the ACBL leave that out, too? I'm told that the chapters were added back to the Dutch version as well. It was a surprise to me that they had been omitted intentionally. I find that a hierarchical organization makes any body of information easier to deal with. The TD who prepared the ACBL version told me that he was likewise surprised, because the chapter headings and the table of contents were not highlighted as being deleted. We did leave out the "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law...." sentence, but not intentionally. It will likely be added back shortly. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 11 18:09:18 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:09:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chapter Headings (was: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty) In-Reply-To: <694eadd40907110830s1e9870f8t371126bb5e3e8b9f@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40907110830s1e9870f8t371126bb5e3e8b9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:30:43 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> Adam W wrote: >> ?> L23 is now part of Chapter V - The Auction. >> >> As others have mentioned, the chapters are gone except in the ACBL >> version. >> >> > Did the drafting committee intend for it to apply to the play >> > also? >> >> ?From the Introduction: "Where headings remain they do not limit the >> application of any law...." ?Or did the ACBL leave that out, too? > > I'm told that the chapters were added back to the Dutch version as > well. It was a surprise to me that they had been omitted > intentionally. I find that a hierarchical organization makes any body > of information easier to deal with. The TD who prepared the ACBL > version told me that he was likewise surprised, because the chapter > headings and the table of contents were not highlighted as being > deleted. > > We did leave out the "Where headings remain they do not limit the > application of any law...." sentence, but not intentionally. It will > likely be added back shortly. My ACBL version of the laws has this sentence, as does the version on the ACBL website. (Both versions also incorrectly include the old "Scope of the Laws") From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jul 11 19:32:59 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:32:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Chapter Headings (was: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-trickspenalty) References: <694eadd40907110830s1e9870f8t371126bb5e3e8b9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6601E414777E4C7EBC05D23C09065912@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Adam Wildavsky" >The TD who prepared the ACBL version told me.... An interesting delegation of power. I am wondering what instructions the TD received, and how much the TD's effort was edited by the LC before its approval. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 11 19:49:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:49:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Chapter Headings (was: Ambiguity in revokenumber-of-tricks penalty) References: <694eadd40907110830s1e9870f8t371126bb5e3e8b9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007701ca024f$e56d06c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Chapter Headings (was: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty) (Adam) > I'm told that the chapters were added back to the Dutch > version as well. It was a surprise to me that they had been > omitted intentionally. I find that a hierarchical organization > makes any body of information easier to deal with. The > TD who prepared the ACBL version told me that he was > likewise surprised, because the chapter headings and the > table of contents were not highlighted as being deleted. > (Robert) My ACBL version of the laws has this sentence*, as does the version on the ACBL website. < +=+ It seems more than a little strange to assume that omission of a major feature was unintentional. It may be thought even stranger to reinstate it without enquiry, the more so given the indication in the Introduction that the removal of certain headings was intentional. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* In the Introduction, the sentence beginning 'Where headings remain....' ] From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 11 22:12:33 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:12:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] filling holes In-Reply-To: <200907021558.n62FwMFI027027@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200907021558.n62FwMFI027027@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A58F231.7040808@nhcc.net> > From: rfrick at rfrick.info > Suppose my partner and I change our system, ... Now I pick up > ... realize I have no way to show my hand, and ... Perhaps it would be helpful to restate the general rule in response to this old thread. Each pair is responsible for telling the opponents their "true agreement," and failing to do so is misinformation. Having forgotten the true agreement or having been unaware of it in the first place does not excuse players from compliance. The "true agreement" includes explicit, tacit, and implicit understandings. Those last are understandings that arise in consequence of other agreements. My favorite example is that if I agree to play weak notrump, the auction 1m-1M-1NT doesn't show a balanced 12-14, even if my partner and I neglect further discussion. Perhaps more common for ACBL players is agreeing to play forcing 1NT responses to 1M without discussing what to do with exactly 4=5=2=2 shape. The famous "Kaplan question" case is another example. I think Bob's question is easily resolved by the principles above. Any competent director will rule that the true agreement for whatever call Bob eventually chooses includes his troublesome hand, just as the Italian answer to Kaplan would routinely be ruled MI today. Perhaps it's unnecessary on this list, but I'll just mention that the mere existence of MI doesn't mandate an adjusted score unless other conditions are met. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 11 22:19:13 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:19:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh In-Reply-To: <200907061521.n66FLg3K011360@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200907061521.n66FLg3K011360@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A58F3C1.80509@nhcc.net> > From: "Sven Pran" > And don't forget the condition in Law 12 for assigning an adjusted score: > The non-offending side must have been damaged. Does "damage" (as defined by > WBFLC) include the loss of rectification for an irregularity that was > avoided? They have made it very clear that possible illegal plays are not to > be taken into consideration when assessing "damage". I think the question for revokes has been answered, but I must have missed that last. What exactly has the WBFLC "made ... very clear?" Illegal plays are not taken into account in claim rulings, and in general putative _future_ irregularities aren't given any consideration in assigning adjusted scores, but I haven't seen any hint that _past_ irregularities are not considered. As far as I know, they always are considered. Suppose a player is barred (after an IB, for example), and there's another irregularity later that requires an adjusted score. Would Sven or anybody else assign the adjusted score on the basis that the barred player might bid? From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 11 22:39:23 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:39:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <200907081854.n68IshWa003100@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200907081854.n68IshWa003100@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A58F87B.5090901@nhcc.net> > From: "Peter Eidt" > South' action (first asking and afterwards > claiming use of UI) looks like the purposeful (and working) > attempt to "damage" opponents, As has been mentioned before on this list, asking questions in order to put opponents into an invidious UI position is entirely legal. Indeed, failing to do so when possible is a form of dumping. Some people mentioned L20G1, but it has nothing to do with this issue. > which is not the way we (I) want bridge to be played. Me either, but we seem to be stuck until 2017 unless we play with screens. From: Eric Landau > We have a few players who indulge in some questionable, arguably > unethical, practice (such as asking questions to which they know the > answers in the hope of getting their opponents into UI situations) I don't see anything that makes the practice "questionable," let alone "arguably unethical." It isn't to my taste as to what makes a good game, but there are lots of other rules I dislike too. That doesn't give me an excuse not to follow them. As to Eric's general points, I'm afraid we've disagreed before about whether rules are to be taken literally. (I don't see why not.) From adam at tameware.com Sat Jul 11 23:35:24 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:35:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chapter Headings Message-ID: <694eadd40907111435n6dce4e6nab03235a8b4779f7@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:30:43 -0400, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >>> ?Adam W wrote: >>> ?> L23 is now part of Chapter V - The Auction. >>> >>> As others have mentioned, the chapters are gone except in the ACBL >>> version. >>> >>> > Did the drafting committee intend for it to apply to the play >>> > also? >>> >>> ?From the Introduction: "Where headings remain they do not limit the >>> application of any law...." ?Or did the ACBL leave that out, too? >> >> I'm told that the chapters were added back to the Dutch version as >> well. It was a surprise to me that they had been omitted >> intentionally. I find that a hierarchical organization makes any body >> of information easier to deal with. The TD who prepared the ACBL >> version told me that he was likewise surprised, because the chapter >> headings and the table of contents were not highlighted as being >> deleted. >> >> We did leave out the "Where headings remain they do not limit the >> application of any law...." sentence, but not intentionally. It will >> likely be added back shortly. > > My ACBL version of the laws has this sentence, as does the version on the > ACBL website. > > (Both versions also incorrectly include the old "Scope of the Laws") My mistake. The paragraph from the '97 laws that we might add back is this one: "The hundreds of headings and sub-headings can help a Director find the section of a law that is applicable to the facts of a case (these headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not considered to be part of the Laws). The Table of Contents at the front of the book and the alphabetical index at the back should make a Director's task lighter." -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 12 10:50:44 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:50:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <4A58F87B.5090901@nhcc.net> References: <200907081854.n68IshWa003100@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A58F87B.5090901@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4A59A3E4.1000403@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Peter Eidt" >> South' action (first asking and afterwards >> claiming use of UI) looks like the purposeful (and working) >> attempt to "damage" opponents, > > As has been mentioned before on this list, asking questions in order to > put opponents into an invidious UI position is entirely legal. Indeed, > failing to do so when possible is a form of dumping. > This may well be true, but in that case it MUST be acceptable to refuse to answer such questions if it turns out the opponents will learn something they are not entitled to. Well, refuse is of course a bit harsh, but answering them in such way as to not give UI must be acceptable. Without this, the following tactic becomes available: 4NT -? - asking for minors - pass - 5Di - what does that show? This question is silly, as it is quite clear that this should show diamonds. However, when one presumes 4NT might have been intended as Blackwood, one would be able to hear the answer "1 ace". This reveals the mistake, something the opponents are not entitled to. If the question is to be accepted (and I agree that it is impossible to distinguish - in real life - whether the question was asked to uncover a bidding mistake or to learn something real), then it must also be acceptable to answer "diamond preference, are you insane?". > Some people mentioned L20G1, but it has nothing to do with this issue. > >> which is not the way we (I) want bridge to be played. > > Me either, but we seem to be stuck until 2017 unless we play with screens. > Well, I don't see a problem. But then I'm in a minority. > From: Eric Landau >> We have a few players who indulge in some questionable, arguably >> unethical, practice (such as asking questions to which they know the >> answers in the hope of getting their opponents into UI situations) > > I don't see anything that makes the practice "questionable," let alone > "arguably unethical." It isn't to my taste as to what makes a good > game, but there are lots of other rules I dislike too. That doesn't > give me an excuse not to follow them. > > As to Eric's general points, I'm afraid we've disagreed before about > whether rules are to be taken literally. (I don't see why not.) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jul 12 20:21:17 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:21:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls Message-ID: <4A5A299D.8040301@nhcc.net> >> asking questions in order to >> put opponents into an invidious UI position is entirely legal. Indeed, >> failing to do so when possible is a form of dumping. > From: Herman De Wael > ... in that case it MUST be acceptable to refuse > to answer such questions ... While I agree that the dWS would make for a better game in this situation than the one the WBFLC has given us, there is no "must" about it. Rubens has another solution that might be even better. The problem with "must" is that your, my, and Rubens' ideas about what makes a good game are irrelevant. It's interesting, though, that as far as I can tell, no official body has actually stated that the dWS is illegal. It's fairly clear from what the WBFLC has written that they intended to so so, but as is often the case, the language doesn't necessarily match the intent. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jul 13 00:14:25 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:14:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Houston Casebook & UI Guide Message-ID: I have combined the NABC+ and Non-NABC+ Houston NABC appeals into two pdf documents downloadable from my website (under Bridge Laws and Regulations). I have also added an Unauthorized Information Guide for ACBL Players on the same page. I have sent it to Mike Flader, suggesting that he needs to write a column on this subject in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin. Grattan and Richard (who helped me understand the pertinent Laws), get out your hatchets. During this effort the last sentence of L16B2 (parenthesized in the WBF version but a standalone sentence in the ACBL version) was a big surprise to me. Also surprising was my realization that the footnote to L16B3 applies only to the potential non-offenders, since that is whom L16B3 addresses. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 13 04:26:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:26:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Chapter Headings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40907111435n6dce4e6nab03235a8b4779f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: One advantage of being on holidays is that one can stay up until the early hours of a Canberra morning to watch England almost lose the first Ashes Test. 1954 movie "Beat the Devil": "The trouble with England is that it's all pomp and no circumstance." Adam Wildavsky suggested: >My mistake. The paragraph from the '97 laws that we might add back is >this one: > >"The hundreds of headings and sub-headings can help a Director find >the section of a law that is applicable to the facts of a case (these >headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not >considered to be part of the Laws). [snip] 2007 Introduction: "...Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law..." Richard Hills quibbles: There is an important difference between the 1997 Scope saying "heading are not part of" and the 2007 Introduction saying "headings do not limit" The Fabulous Law Book. The difference is that under the new regime headings can assist a TD in interpreting the intent of a Law. For example, if Adam had paid more attention to the heading of the 2007 Law 23, Adam would not have carelessly misinterpreted the intent of the 2007 Law 23. 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 jimfox00 at cox.net Mon Jul 13 05:06:08 2009 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:06:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Chapter Headings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40907111435n6dce4e6nab03235a8b4779f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Who is John Galt? Fluxman -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: 07/12/2009 10:26 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Chapter Headings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] One advantage of being on holidays is that one can stay up until the early hours of a Canberra morning to watch England almost lose the first Ashes Test. 1954 movie "Beat the Devil": "The trouble with England is that it's all pomp and no circumstance." Adam Wildavsky suggested: >My mistake. The paragraph from the '97 laws that we might add back is >this one: > >"The hundreds of headings and sub-headings can help a Director find >the section of a law that is applicable to the facts of a case (these >headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not >considered to be part of the Laws). [snip] 2007 Introduction: "...Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law..." Richard Hills quibbles: There is an important difference between the 1997 Scope saying "heading are not part of" and the 2007 Introduction saying "headings do not limit" The Fabulous Law Book. The difference is that under the new regime headings can assist a TD in interpreting the intent of a Law. For example, if Adam had paid more attention to the heading of the 2007 Law 23, Adam would not have carelessly misinterpreted the intent of the 2007 Law 23. 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 13 10:10:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:10:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Chapter Headings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <694eadd40907111435n6dce4e6nab03235a8b4779f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000801ca0391$7857ed50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 4:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Chapter Headings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Who is John Galt? > > Fluxman > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sent: 07/12/2009 10:26 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Chapter Headings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > One advantage of being on holidays is that one can stay up until the > early hours of a Canberra morning to watch England almost lose the > first Ashes Test. > > 1954 movie "Beat the Devil": > > "The trouble with England is that it's all pomp and no circumstance." > > Adam Wildavsky suggested: > >>My mistake. The paragraph from the '97 laws that we might add back is >>this one: >> >>"The hundreds of headings and sub-headings can help a Director find >>the section of a law that is applicable to the facts of a case (these >>headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not >>considered to be part of the Laws). > > [snip] > > 2007 Introduction: > > "...Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any > law..." > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > There is an important difference between the 1997 Scope saying > "heading are not part of" and the 2007 Introduction saying "headings > do not limit" The Fabulous Law Book. > > The difference is that under the new regime headings can assist a TD > in interpreting the intent of a Law. For example, if Adam had paid > more attention to the heading of the 2007 Law 23, Adam would not have > carelessly misinterpreted the intent of the 2007 Law 23. > > > 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 From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jul 13 11:02:51 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:02:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <0A5B2169-F563-4A89-B96C-83EA418A91EB@starpower.net> References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de><34644B4D-F222-4FBD-A119-77A5F77D73B0@starpower.net><4A54E9DD.1090101@gmx.de> <001f01ca003e$32db36c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <0A5B2169-F563-4A89-B96C-83EA418A91EB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6637544E-C9AA-4A22-9A59-5C9653C69B19@btinternet.com> On 9 Jul 2009, at 15:08, Eric Landau wrote: > So having proposed a regulation that says, in > straightforward language, "You can't do that," we give it to the > lawyers, who translate it into hopefully lawsuit-proof legalese by > sprinkling it with "could have"s and "might have"s. This permits us > to throw the bums out (or, hopefully, penalize them into changing > their ways) without actually accusing them of any specific > wrongdoing, which is what we wanted. It also gives us a method of coping with the fact that we often don't know whether or not players have deliberately attempted to gain from flouting the laws. > > But then well-meaning folks come along and, unaware of history and > ignorant of the original objective, carefully parse the legal > language, which, read literally, says not, "You can't do that," but > rather "You can't do anything that might look like doing that." With > that reading, they use the regulation to penalize what they know to > be innocent parties, despite their own certainty that those folks are > in fact not in any way attempting to get away with anything > questionable, and we lose the baby with the bathwater. If you don't enforce the Law as written, it ceases to be the de facto law and any protection from law-suits that its wording was intended to give goes with it. Gordon Rainsford From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 13 11:04:44 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:04:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Chapter Headings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001001ca0398$f8868c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Chapter Headings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > One advantage of being on holidays is that one can stay up > until the early hours of a Canberra morning to watch England > almost lose the first Ashes Test. > +=+ About as near a victory as the English should expect in the land of Owain Glyndwr. But to see Monty Panesar hold out for forty minutes with the bat, and so-'elp-me actually strike a four, was well worth the fourteen sessions that went before. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 13 12:21:04 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:21:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls References: <1MORTk-08dfGq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de><34644B4D-F222-4FBD-A119-77A5F77D73B0@starpower.net><4A54E9DD.1090101@gmx.de><001f01ca003e$32db36c0$0302a8c0@Mildred><0A5B2169-F563-4A89-B96C-83EA418A91EB@starpower.net> <6637544E-C9AA-4A22-9A59-5C9653C69B19@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <002801ca03a3$a3d57b70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls > It also gives us a method of coping with the fact that we often don't know whether or not players have deliberately attempted to gain from flouting the laws. > +=+ Don't know, or at least cannot prove.... The philosophy extends to "shall base his view on the balance of probabilities" [Law 85A1] and "If in his judgement it is probable" [Law 84D]. These are, after all, no more than the rules of a game; those who choose to play accept its rules. Or in some cases make them up to suit themselves. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at tameware.com Mon Jul 13 16:14:56 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:14:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> Marvin L French wrote: >> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" >> > >> > This came up on our ACBL Laws Commission mailing list. Has it been >> > discussed on BLML? >> > >> > From: Peter Boyd < >> > >> > Suppose a Defender revokes twice in the same suit, while the >> > Declarer is cashing side-siut winners in a trump contract. On >> > the first winner, the defender discards a different side suit, >> > and Declarer wins the trick. On the second winner the >> > Defender ruffs in, and wins the trick. Assume the Defenders >> > ?take at least one more trick later. >> > >> > Is there a one-trick penalty or a two-trick penalty? >> > >> > The laws say there is no penalty for a second revoke in the same >> > suit. But, the necessary condition for there to be a two trick penalty >> > (the revoker wins the revoke trick) did not occur on the first revoke, >> > but did on the second. Even though there is no penalty for the >> > second revoke, can it trigger the extra penalty, when the offending >> > player wins that trick? Or, does the fact the the offender did not win >> > the first revoke trick limit the penalty to one trick. >> > >> > ############# >> > >> > "Penalty" is a naughty word now, it's "rectification." >> > >> > Law 64B2 says plainly that there is no rectification for a >> > subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, adding that >> > Law 64C may apply. >> > >> > Law 64C says the Director shall assign an adjusted score if he deems >> > that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated for damage >> > caused by the two revokes. No, absence of the two-trick >> > rectification for the second revoke does not constitute "damage." >> >> Marv is right, of course. Getting the same number of >> tricks you would have received had the irregularity not occurred >> does not constitute "damage". >> >> I do not see the problem (other than the US culture of >> dealing out severe punishments rather than fixing mistakes). >> >> L64C is fine. L64 does not mean that the NOS gets an additional trick >> because of the revoke. L64 just provides a simple rectification >> procedure that *sometimes* results in the NOS getting one trick >> more than through normal play, but also *sometimes* results >> in the NOS getting exactly the same number of tricks >> as they would have through normal play. Especially, there >> no longer is an automatic two-trick rectification if a card that could >> have been played to the revoke trick wins a later trick >> (change in L64A2 in the 2007 laws). > > I am convinced that the situation is not as clear as Marvin and Thomas > believe. Here's an example of a similar situation we've been using > (thanks to Howie Weinstein and Chip Martel): > > Declarer (West) is in 4S on a heart lead. > > Jxxxx ? AKQxx > AKx ? ? xxx > Ax ? ?? xxx > Axx ? ? xx > > The normal result is 10 tricks, since he has 3 side suit losers. > However, on the second round of trumps declarer revokes, throwing a > club. The result with no further irregularities is now down one (same > three losers, but a 1 trick penalty). However, if dummy plays a third > round of trumps and declarer throws a second club (or diamond or > heart), he can now make 11 tricks, converted back to 10 by the 1 trick > penalty. > > Were the defenders damaged by the second revoke (and thus > "insufficiently compensated")? If we consider the start of the hand, > no: back to the original result. If instead we consider the situation > before the second revoke, yes (the defenders were headed to down one). > > How would you rule, and why? > > If you would let declarer score up his game, what would you do if, > when declarer pitched a second club, the defenders called for a TD and > insisted that declarer follow suit instead? Everyone has shown out, so > they know that someone has revoked! I wrote to Ton about this, and he pointed out that the question has been asked and answered in his commentary on the 2007 laws, published here: www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsCommentary.pdf The short answer is that, as several posters have suggested, if the second revoke produces a gain for the defenders over only revoking once then the score is adjusted as it would have been had they only revoked once. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 13 16:53:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:53:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201ca03ca$21fff4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> Marvin L French wrote: >> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" >> > >> > This came up on our ACBL Laws Commission mailing list. Has it been >> > discussed on BLML? >> > >> > From: Peter Boyd < >> > >> > Suppose a Defender revokes twice in the same suit, while the >> > Declarer is cashing side-siut winners in a trump contract. On >> > the first winner, the defender discards a different side suit, >> > and Declarer wins the trick. On the second winner the >> > Defender ruffs in, and wins the trick. Assume the Defenders >> > take at least one more trick later. >> > >> > Is there a one-trick penalty or a two-trick penalty? >> > >> > The laws say there is no penalty for a second revoke in the same >> > suit. But, the necessary condition for there to be a two trick penalty >> > (the revoker wins the revoke trick) did not occur on the first revoke, >> > but did on the second. Even though there is no penalty for the >> > second revoke, can it trigger the extra penalty, when the offending >> > player wins that trick? Or, does the fact the the offender did not win >> > the first revoke trick limit the penalty to one trick. >> > >> > ############# >> > >> > "Penalty" is a naughty word now, it's "rectification." >> > >> > Law 64B2 says plainly that there is no rectification for a >> > subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, adding that >> > Law 64C may apply. >> > >> > Law 64C says the Director shall assign an adjusted score if he deems >> > that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated for damage >> > caused by the two revokes. No, absence of the two-trick >> > rectification for the second revoke does not constitute "damage." >> >> Marv is right, of course. Getting the same number of >> tricks you would have received had the irregularity not occurred >> does not constitute "damage". >> >> I do not see the problem (other than the US culture of >> dealing out severe punishments rather than fixing mistakes). >> >> L64C is fine. L64 does not mean that the NOS gets an additional trick >> because of the revoke. L64 just provides a simple rectification >> procedure that *sometimes* results in the NOS getting one trick >> more than through normal play, but also *sometimes* results >> in the NOS getting exactly the same number of tricks >> as they would have through normal play. Especially, there >> no longer is an automatic two-trick rectification if a card that could >> have been played to the revoke trick wins a later trick >> (change in L64A2 in the 2007 laws). > > I am convinced that the situation is not as clear as Marvin and Thomas > believe. Here's an example of a similar situation we've been using > (thanks to Howie Weinstein and Chip Martel): > > Declarer (West) is in 4S on a heart lead. > > Jxxxx AKQxx > AKx xxx > Ax xxx > Axx xx > > The normal result is 10 tricks, since he has 3 side suit losers. > However, on the second round of trumps declarer revokes, throwing a > club. The result with no further irregularities is now down one (same > three losers, but a 1 trick penalty). However, if dummy plays a third > round of trumps and declarer throws a second club (or diamond or > heart), he can now make 11 tricks, converted back to 10 by the 1 trick > penalty. > > Were the defenders damaged by the second revoke (and thus > "insufficiently compensated")? If we consider the start of the hand, > no: back to the original result. If instead we consider the situation > before the second revoke, yes (the defenders were headed to down one). > > How would you rule, and why? > > If you would let declarer score up his game, what would you do if, > when declarer pitched a second club, the defenders called for a TD and > insisted that declarer follow suit instead? Everyone has shown out, so > they know that someone has revoked! I wrote to Ton about this, and he pointed out that the question has been asked and answered in his commentary on the 2007 laws, published here: www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsCommentary.pdf The short answer is that, as several posters have suggested, if the second revoke produces a gain for the defenders over only revoking once then the score is adjusted as it would have been had they only revoked once. +=+ If I understand the above correctly it matches to the earlier Bavin-Endicott response (to everyone's relief): +=+ Whatever choice of action is suggested for the Director must remain within the given law, which Max Bavin and I express (in his words referring to a different case) as follows: "I agree with you that 64B2 over-rides all else. In the example given, it's 1 trick penalty. I am completely certain about this. However, note that 64C may well come into play. The situation prior to the second revoke (but after the first) is that 1-trick is going to be transferred come what may. If the second revoke costs declarer a trick (............... ...........), then 64C would kick-in i.e. the director must examine what the outcome of the hand would have been had the second revoke never occurred." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jul 13 17:08:02 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:08:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry to interfere in this lengthy and wordy subject. I find it outre that even the least knowledge of any dialect of English is not enough to fully answer the supposed problem. Oh well, without such "problems" there would be so little to pass the time and miss the opportunity to pontificate. Please read the ENTIRE Law 64 including "C", and see that no further explanation is needed. No AMBIGUITY exists in the extant Law -- it needs no further Laws Commentary or blessings from "on high"- just a simple stepwise application of what the Law says to do. Anything beyond that is, to me, quibbling and shows a serious lack of professionalism by those knowing "C" exists EXACTLY FOR THE KIND OF SITUATION EXPRESSED AS A "PROBLEM". Capitals for emphasis - not shouting. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Wildavsky To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Adam Wildavsky> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Thomas Dehn > wrote: >> >> Marvin L French > wrote: >> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" >> > >> > This came up on our ACBL Laws Commission mailing list. Has it been >> > discussed on BLML? >> > >> > From: Peter Boyd < >> > >> > Suppose a Defender revokes twice in the same suit, while the >> > Declarer is cashing side-siut winners in a trump contract. On >> > the first winner, the defender discards a different side suit, >> > and Declarer wins the trick. On the second winner the >> > Defender ruffs in, and wins the trick. Assume the Defenders >> > take at least one more trick later. >> > >> > Is there a one-trick penalty or a two-trick penalty? >> > >> > The laws say there is no penalty for a second revoke in the same >> > suit. But, the necessary condition for there to be a two trick penalty >> > (the revoker wins the revoke trick) did not occur on the first revoke, >> > but did on the second. Even though there is no penalty for the >> > second revoke, can it trigger the extra penalty, when the offending >> > player wins that trick? Or, does the fact the the offender did not win >> > the first revoke trick limit the penalty to one trick. >> > >> > ############# >> > >> > "Penalty" is a naughty word now, it's "rectification." >> > >> > Law 64B2 says plainly that there is no rectification for a >> > subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, adding that >> > Law 64C may apply. >> > >> > Law 64C says the Director shall assign an adjusted score if he deems >> > that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated for damage >> > caused by the two revokes. No, absence of the two-trick >> > rectification for the second revoke does not constitute "damage." >> >> Marv is right, of course. Getting the same number of >> tricks you would have received had the irregularity not occurred >> does not constitute "damage". >> >> I do not see the problem (other than the US culture of >> dealing out severe punishments rather than fixing mistakes). >> >> L64C is fine. L64 does not mean that the NOS gets an additional trick >> because of the revoke. L64 just provides a simple rectification >> procedure that *sometimes* results in the NOS getting one trick >> more than through normal play, but also *sometimes* results >> in the NOS getting exactly the same number of tricks >> as they would have through normal play. Especially, there >> no longer is an automatic two-trick rectification if a card that could >> have been played to the revoke trick wins a later trick >> (change in L64A2 in the 2007 laws). > > I am convinced that the situation is not as clear as Marvin and Thomas > believe. Here's an example of a similar situation we've been using > (thanks to Howie Weinstein and Chip Martel): > > Declarer (West) is in 4S on a heart lead. > > Jxxxx AKQxx > AKx xxx > Ax xxx > Axx xx > > The normal result is 10 tricks, since he has 3 side suit losers. > However, on the second round of trumps declarer revokes, throwing a > club. The result with no further irregularities is now down one (same > three losers, but a 1 trick penalty). However, if dummy plays a third > round of trumps and declarer throws a second club (or diamond or > heart), he can now make 11 tricks, converted back to 10 by the 1 trick > penalty. > > Were the defenders damaged by the second revoke (and thus > "insufficiently compensated")? If we consider the start of the hand, > no: back to the original result. If instead we consider the situation > before the second revoke, yes (the defenders were headed to down one). > > How would you rule, and why? > > If you would let declarer score up his game, what would you do if, > when declarer pitched a second club, the defenders called for a TD and > insisted that declarer follow suit instead? Everyone has shown out, so > they know that someone has revoked! I wrote to Ton about this, and he pointed out that the question has been asked and answered in his commentary on the 2007 laws, published here: www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsCommentary.pdf The short answer is that, as several posters have suggested, if the second revoke produces a gain for the defenders over only revoking once then the score is adjusted as it would have been had they only revoked once. -- Adam Wildavsky > www.tameware.com _______________________________________________ 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/20090713/a71107bc/attachment-0001.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 13 18:43:02 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:43:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:08 To: "blml" Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > Sorry to interfere in this lengthy and wordy subject. I find it outre > that even the least knowledge of any dialect of English is not enough to > fully answer the supposed problem. Oh well, without such "problems" there > would be so little to pass the time and miss the opportunity to > pontificate. Please read the ENTIRE Law 64 including "C", and see that no > further explanation is needed. No AMBIGUITY exists in the extant Law -- > it needs no further Laws Commentary or blessings from "on high"- just a > simple stepwise application of what the Law says to do. Anything beyond > that is, to me, quibbling and shows a serious lack of professionalism by > those knowing "C" exists EXACTLY FOR THE KIND OF SITUATION EXPRESSED AS A > "PROBLEM". > > Capitals for emphasis - not shouting. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Adam Wildavsky > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:14 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Adam > Wildavsky> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Thomas Dehn > > wrote: > >> > >> Marvin L French > > wrote: > >> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > >> > > >> > This came up on our ACBL Laws Commission mailing list. Has it been > >> > discussed on BLML? > >> > > >> > From: Peter Boyd < > >> > > >> > Suppose a Defender revokes twice in the same suit, while the > >> > Declarer is cashing side-siut winners in a trump contract. On > >> > the first winner, the defender discards a different side suit, > >> > and Declarer wins the trick. On the second winner the > >> > Defender ruffs in, and wins the trick. Assume the Defenders > >> > take at least one more trick later. > >> > > >> > Is there a one-trick penalty or a two-trick penalty? > >> > > >> > The laws say there is no penalty for a second revoke in the same > >> > suit. But, the necessary condition for there to be a two trick > penalty > >> > (the revoker wins the revoke trick) did not occur on the first > revoke, > >> > but did on the second. Even though there is no penalty for the > >> > second revoke, can it trigger the extra penalty, when the offending > >> > player wins that trick? Or, does the fact the the offender did not > win > >> > the first revoke trick limit the penalty to one trick. > >> > > >> > ############# > >> > > >> > "Penalty" is a naughty word now, it's "rectification." > >> > > >> > Law 64B2 says plainly that there is no rectification for a > >> > subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, adding that > >> > Law 64C may apply. > >> > > >> > Law 64C says the Director shall assign an adjusted score if he deems > >> > that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated for damage > >> > caused by the two revokes. No, absence of the two-trick > >> > rectification for the second revoke does not constitute "damage." > >> > >> Marv is right, of course. Getting the same number of > >> tricks you would have received had the irregularity not occurred > >> does not constitute "damage". > >> > >> I do not see the problem (other than the US culture of > >> dealing out severe punishments rather than fixing mistakes). > >> > >> L64C is fine. L64 does not mean that the NOS gets an additional trick > >> because of the revoke. L64 just provides a simple rectification > >> procedure that *sometimes* results in the NOS getting one trick > >> more than through normal play, but also *sometimes* results > >> in the NOS getting exactly the same number of tricks > >> as they would have through normal play. Especially, there > >> no longer is an automatic two-trick rectification if a card that could > >> have been played to the revoke trick wins a later trick > >> (change in L64A2 in the 2007 laws). > > > > I am convinced that the situation is not as clear as Marvin and Thomas > > believe. Here's an example of a similar situation we've been using > > (thanks to Howie Weinstein and Chip Martel): > > > > Declarer (West) is in 4S on a heart lead. > > > > Jxxxx AKQxx > > AKx xxx > > Ax xxx > > Axx xx > > > > The normal result is 10 tricks, since he has 3 side suit losers. > > However, on the second round of trumps declarer revokes, throwing a > > club. The result with no further irregularities is now down one (same > > three losers, but a 1 trick penalty). However, if dummy plays a third > > round of trumps and declarer throws a second club (or diamond or > > heart), he can now make 11 tricks, converted back to 10 by the 1 trick > > penalty. > > > > Were the defenders damaged by the second revoke (and thus > > "insufficiently compensated")? If we consider the start of the hand, > > no: back to the original result. If instead we consider the situation > > before the second revoke, yes (the defenders were headed to down one). > > > > How would you rule, and why? > > > > If you would let declarer score up his game, what would you do if, > > when declarer pitched a second club, the defenders called for a TD and > > insisted that declarer follow suit instead? Everyone has shown out, so > > they know that someone has revoked! > > I wrote to Ton about this, and he pointed out that the question has > been asked and answered in his commentary on the 2007 laws, published > here: > > > www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsCommentary.pdf > > The short answer is that, as several posters have suggested, if the > second revoke produces a gain for the defenders over only revoking > once then the score is adjusted as it would have been had they only > revoked once. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky > > www.tameware.com It seems to me that the lawmakers declined to do something quite difficult. For instance including the definition of what constitutes insufficient compensation. Perhaps they chose to not do such a difficult thing because they are supposed to not do it. And as Kojak states, the law is clear, when the director deems the NOS was insufficiently compensated the score is adjusted. But one of the sources of consternation is that -what the director deems- need not be justified; being neither here nor there, since there is no standard provided against which to compare. I for one do not see the clarity that Kojak sees, and even if I did, I do not see the desirability in what was provided. As for being clear and self contained I will supply an example of how I would compose the relevant law. And as I know the danger of omitting the context of the remaining 30000 words I supply it with that caveat: L64 Revoke Remedies When a revoke has been verified as established the director transfers tricks to the other side after the play period has ended; however, if the number of tricks to be transferred exceeds the number won by a side subsequent an established revoke the excess tricks are not transferred. A. Penalty One trick is transferred for each established revoke; and for each suit in which a player revokes additional tricks are transferred as follows: 1. Won Revoke Trick For each revoke suit that the revoker won the revoke trick, if the offending side won a subsequent trick, one additional trick is transferred. 2. Lost Revoke Trick When revoker did not win the revoke trick, then for each revoke suit one additional trick is transferred for each such suit where afterward the revoker won a trick with a card that he could have legally played to the revoke trick. 3. Right to Penalize Expires Except as provided by L79D, penalty tricks for an established revoke are not transferred if a. the request to penalize is made after the NOS calls to the next board or the round has ended for the table. b. attention was drawn to the failure to follow suit after the cards have been legally mixed (L65D) where the director is unable to verify a revoke occurred. B. Indemnity For the opponents of a revoker, if one or more verified revokes have [a] discouraged an advantageous line of play or made unwinnable tricks otherwise winnable absent the revoke and [b] the number of such tricks are greater than the trick transfer afforded by L64A then the director shall instead award such tricks. The right to indemnification expires if attention is not drawn to the revoke prior to the earlier of the NOS calling to the next board or the end of the round; however, if attention was drawn to the failure to follow suit that was in fact a revoke, and the contestant did not subsequently disclose the revoke in timely a fashion, the period of time that the revoke may be adjudicated is provided by L79D. 1 L64 Including penalty tricks due from subsequent revokes by the other side 2 L64B To improve one's score by adjustment a player must nominate in a timely manner such line of play. 3 L64B Including where no revoke penalty is afforded by L64A. For whatever value such a passage has I suggest that it provides the sense of natural justice, and, in addition gives great service to players since it encourages them to pay attention to what they are doing and what their opponents do. With such information gained by paying attention players are in a better position to play with better calculation and with greater skill. Of course, my impression of the purpose of the thread was the expression of concern that the outcome of a ruling in Zambia being different from one in Albania and still be in accordance with law. In spite of Kojak's assurances I think that the concern is justified. regards roger pewick From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jul 13 18:49:21 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:49:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Clearly, Roger, it was not in accordance with the Law in both places. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? -------------------------------------------------- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:08 To: "blml" > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > Sorry to interfere in this lengthy and wordy subject. I find it outre > that even the least knowledge of any dialect of English is not enough to > fully answer the supposed problem. Oh well, without such "problems" there > would be so little to pass the time and miss the opportunity to > pontificate. Please read the ENTIRE Law 64 including "C", and see that no > further explanation is needed. No AMBIGUITY exists in the extant Law -- > it needs no further Laws Commentary or blessings from "on high"- just a > simple stepwise application of what the Law says to do. Anything beyond > that is, to me, quibbling and shows a serious lack of professionalism by > those knowing "C" exists EXACTLY FOR THE KIND OF SITUATION EXPRESSED AS A > "PROBLEM". > > Capitals for emphasis - not shouting. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Adam Wildavsky> > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:14 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Adam > Wildavsky>> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Thomas Dehn > >> wrote: > >> > >> Marvin L French >> > wrote: > >> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > >> > > >> > This came up on our ACBL Laws Commission mailing list. Has it been > >> > discussed on BLML? > >> > > >> > From: Peter Boyd < > >> > > >> > Suppose a Defender revokes twice in the same suit, while the > >> > Declarer is cashing side-siut winners in a trump contract. On > >> > the first winner, the defender discards a different side suit, > >> > and Declarer wins the trick. On the second winner the > >> > Defender ruffs in, and wins the trick. Assume the Defenders > >> > take at least one more trick later. > >> > > >> > Is there a one-trick penalty or a two-trick penalty? > >> > > >> > The laws say there is no penalty for a second revoke in the same > >> > suit. But, the necessary condition for there to be a two trick > penalty > >> > (the revoker wins the revoke trick) did not occur on the first > revoke, > >> > but did on the second. Even though there is no penalty for the > >> > second revoke, can it trigger the extra penalty, when the offending > >> > player wins that trick? Or, does the fact the the offender did not > win > >> > the first revoke trick limit the penalty to one trick. > >> > > >> > ############# > >> > > >> > "Penalty" is a naughty word now, it's "rectification." > >> > > >> > Law 64B2 says plainly that there is no rectification for a > >> > subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, adding that > >> > Law 64C may apply. > >> > > >> > Law 64C says the Director shall assign an adjusted score if he deems > >> > that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated for damage > >> > caused by the two revokes. No, absence of the two-trick > >> > rectification for the second revoke does not constitute "damage." > >> > >> Marv is right, of course. Getting the same number of > >> tricks you would have received had the irregularity not occurred > >> does not constitute "damage". > >> > >> I do not see the problem (other than the US culture of > >> dealing out severe punishments rather than fixing mistakes). > >> > >> L64C is fine. L64 does not mean that the NOS gets an additional trick > >> because of the revoke. L64 just provides a simple rectification > >> procedure that *sometimes* results in the NOS getting one trick > >> more than through normal play, but also *sometimes* results > >> in the NOS getting exactly the same number of tricks > >> as they would have through normal play. Especially, there > >> no longer is an automatic two-trick rectification if a card that could > >> have been played to the revoke trick wins a later trick > >> (change in L64A2 in the 2007 laws). > > > > I am convinced that the situation is not as clear as Marvin and Thomas > > believe. Here's an example of a similar situation we've been using > > (thanks to Howie Weinstein and Chip Martel): > > > > Declarer (West) is in 4S on a heart lead. > > > > Jxxxx AKQxx > > AKx xxx > > Ax xxx > > Axx xx > > > > The normal result is 10 tricks, since he has 3 side suit losers. > > However, on the second round of trumps declarer revokes, throwing a > > club. The result with no further irregularities is now down one (same > > three losers, but a 1 trick penalty). However, if dummy plays a third > > round of trumps and declarer throws a second club (or diamond or > > heart), he can now make 11 tricks, converted back to 10 by the 1 trick > > penalty. > > > > Were the defenders damaged by the second revoke (and thus > > "insufficiently compensated")? If we consider the start of the hand, > > no: back to the original result. If instead we consider the situation > > before the second revoke, yes (the defenders were headed to down one). > > > > How would you rule, and why? > > > > If you would let declarer score up his game, what would you do if, > > when declarer pitched a second club, the defenders called for a TD and > > insisted that declarer follow suit instead? Everyone has shown out, so > > they know that someone has revoked! > > I wrote to Ton about this, and he pointed out that the question has > been asked and answered in his commentary on the 2007 laws, published > here: > > > www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsCommentary.pdf> > > The short answer is that, as several posters have suggested, if the > second revoke produces a gain for the defenders over only revoking > once then the score is adjusted as it would have been had they only > revoked once. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky >> > www.tameware.com> It seems to me that the lawmakers declined to do something quite difficult. For instance including the definition of what constitutes insufficient compensation. Perhaps they chose to not do such a difficult thing because they are supposed to not do it. And as Kojak states, the law is clear, when the director deems the NOS was insufficiently compensated the score is adjusted. But one of the sources of consternation is that -what the director deems- need not be justified; being neither here nor there, since there is no standard provided against which to compare. I for one do not see the clarity that Kojak sees, and even if I did, I do not see the desirability in what was provided. As for being clear and self contained I will supply an example of how I would compose the relevant law. And as I know the danger of omitting the context of the remaining 30000 words I supply it with that caveat: L64 Revoke Remedies When a revoke has been verified as established the director transfers tricks to the other side after the play period has ended; however, if the number of tricks to be transferred exceeds the number won by a side subsequent an established revoke the excess tricks are not transferred. A. Penalty One trick is transferred for each established revoke; and for each suit in which a player revokes additional tricks are transferred as follows: 1. Won Revoke Trick For each revoke suit that the revoker won the revoke trick, if the offending side won a subsequent trick, one additional trick is transferred. 2. Lost Revoke Trick When revoker did not win the revoke trick, then for each revoke suit one additional trick is transferred for each such suit where afterward the revoker won a trick with a card that he could have legally played to the revoke trick. 3. Right to Penalize Expires Except as provided by L79D, penalty tricks for an established revoke are not transferred if a. the request to penalize is made after the NOS calls to the next board or the round has ended for the table. b. attention was drawn to the failure to follow suit after the cards have been legally mixed (L65D) where the director is unable to verify a revoke occurred. B. Indemnity For the opponents of a revoker, if one or more verified revokes have [a] discouraged an advantageous line of play or made unwinnable tricks otherwise winnable absent the revoke and [b] the number of such tricks are greater than the trick transfer afforded by L64A then the director shall instead award such tricks. The right to indemnification expires if attention is not drawn to the revoke prior to the earlier of the NOS calling to the next board or the end of the round; however, if attention was drawn to the failure to follow suit that was in fact a revoke, and the contestant did not subsequently disclose the revoke in timely a fashion, the period of time that the revoke may be adjudicated is provided by L79D. 1 L64 Including penalty tricks due from subsequent revokes by the other side 2 L64B To improve one's score by adjustment a player must nominate in a timely manner such line of play. 3 L64B Including where no revoke penalty is afforded by L64A. For whatever value such a passage has I suggest that it provides the sense of natural justice, and, in addition gives great service to players since it encourages them to pay attention to what they are doing and what their opponents do. With such information gained by paying attention players are in a better position to play with better calculation and with greater skill. Of course, my impression of the purpose of the thread was the expression of concern that the outcome of a ruling in Zambia being different from one in Albania and still be in accordance with law. In spite of Kojak's assurances I think that the concern is justified. regards roger pewick _______________________________________________ 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/20090713/3a042941/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 13 19:11:24 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > Sorry to interfere in this lengthy and wordy subject. I find it outre > that even the least knowledge of any dialect of English is not enough to > fully answer the supposed problem. Oh well, without such "problems" there > would be so little to pass the time and miss the opportunity to > pontificate. Please read the ENTIRE Law 64 including "C", and see that no > further explanation is needed. No AMBIGUITY exists in the extant Law -- > it needs no further Laws Commentary or blessings from "on high"- just a > simple stepwise application of what the Law says to do. Anything beyond > that is, to me, quibbling and shows a serious lack of professionalism by > those knowing "C" exists EXACTLY FOR THE KIND OF SITUATION EXPRESSED AS A > "PROBLEM". I am not sure what the topic is here. But I can't resist the challenge. What about a dialect where the singular includes the plural? Then we would have "When, after any established revoke or revokes, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-ofending side is insufficiently compensated by this law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." > > Capitals for emphasis - not shouting. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Adam Wildavsky > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:14 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Adam > Wildavsky> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Thomas Dehn > > wrote: > >> > >> Marvin L French > > wrote: > >> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > >> > > >> > This came up on our ACBL Laws Commission mailing list. Has it been > >> > discussed on BLML? > >> > > >> > From: Peter Boyd < > >> > > >> > Suppose a Defender revokes twice in the same suit, while the > >> > Declarer is cashing side-siut winners in a trump contract. On > >> > the first winner, the defender discards a different side suit, > >> > and Declarer wins the trick. On the second winner the > >> > Defender ruffs in, and wins the trick. Assume the Defenders > >> > take at least one more trick later. > >> > > >> > Is there a one-trick penalty or a two-trick penalty? > >> > > >> > The laws say there is no penalty for a second revoke in the same > >> > suit. But, the necessary condition for there to be a two trick > penalty > >> > (the revoker wins the revoke trick) did not occur on the first > revoke, > >> > but did on the second. Even though there is no penalty for the > >> > second revoke, can it trigger the extra penalty, when the offending > >> > player wins that trick? Or, does the fact the the offender did not > win > >> > the first revoke trick limit the penalty to one trick. > >> > > >> > ############# > >> > > >> > "Penalty" is a naughty word now, it's "rectification." > >> > > >> > Law 64B2 says plainly that there is no rectification for a > >> > subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, adding that > >> > Law 64C may apply. > >> > > >> > Law 64C says the Director shall assign an adjusted score if he > deems > >> > that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated for > damage > >> > caused by the two revokes. No, absence of the two-trick > >> > rectification for the second revoke does not constitute "damage." > >> > >> Marv is right, of course. Getting the same number of > >> tricks you would have received had the irregularity not occurred > >> does not constitute "damage". > >> > >> I do not see the problem (other than the US culture of > >> dealing out severe punishments rather than fixing mistakes). > >> > >> L64C is fine. L64 does not mean that the NOS gets an additional trick > >> because of the revoke. L64 just provides a simple rectification > >> procedure that *sometimes* results in the NOS getting one trick > >> more than through normal play, but also *sometimes* results > >> in the NOS getting exactly the same number of tricks > >> as they would have through normal play. Especially, there > >> no longer is an automatic two-trick rectification if a card that > could > >> have been played to the revoke trick wins a later trick > >> (change in L64A2 in the 2007 laws). > > > > I am convinced that the situation is not as clear as Marvin and Thomas > > believe. Here's an example of a similar situation we've been using > > (thanks to Howie Weinstein and Chip Martel): > > > > Declarer (West) is in 4S on a heart lead. > > > > Jxxxx AKQxx > > AKx xxx > > Ax xxx > > Axx xx > > > > The normal result is 10 tricks, since he has 3 side suit losers. > > However, on the second round of trumps declarer revokes, throwing a > > club. The result with no further irregularities is now down one (same > > three losers, but a 1 trick penalty). However, if dummy plays a third > > round of trumps and declarer throws a second club (or diamond or > > heart), he can now make 11 tricks, converted back to 10 by the 1 trick > > penalty. > > > > Were the defenders damaged by the second revoke (and thus > > "insufficiently compensated")? If we consider the start of the hand, > > no: back to the original result. If instead we consider the situation > > before the second revoke, yes (the defenders were headed to down one). > > > > How would you rule, and why? > > > > If you would let declarer score up his game, what would you do if, > > when declarer pitched a second club, the defenders called for a TD and > > insisted that declarer follow suit instead? Everyone has shown out, so > > they know that someone has revoked! > > I wrote to Ton about this, and he pointed out that the question has > been asked and answered in his commentary on the 2007 laws, published > here: > > www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsCommentary.pdf > > The short answer is that, as several posters have suggested, if the > second revoke produces a gain for the defenders over only revoking > once then the score is adjusted as it would have been had they only > revoked once. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky > > www.tameware.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 13 23:08:47 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:08:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] To accept or not accept ceclarer's LOOT In-Reply-To: References: <000001ca01fb$565e4c40$031ae4c0$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:05:21 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:43:52 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >>> Subject: [BLML] To accept or not accept ceclarer's LOOT >>> >>> Yesterday, declarer led from hand when he was in dummy. One defender >>> rejected the lead from the wrong hand, while shortly thereafter the >>> other >>> defender accepted it (by playing a card). >>> >>> L53A: "It [a lead faced out of turn] becomes a correct lead if declarer >>> or >>> either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement >>> to >>> that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the >>> irregular lead." >>> >>> So a defender accepted the lead, making it the correct lead. >>> >>> L55B2: "If declarer has led from the wrong hand when it was his turn to >>> lead from his hand or dummy's, and if either defender requires him to >>> retract the lead, he withdraws the card led in error. He must lead from >>> the correct hand." >>> >>> So, because a defender required him to retract the lead, he has to >>> retract >>> the card led and lead from the correct hand. >>> >>> L55A: "If the defenders choose differently, the option expressed by the >>> defender next in turn to the hand from which the card was led out of >>> turn >>> shall prevail." >>> >>> Next in turn was to accept the lead from the wrong hand. >>> >>> My Version: Next-in-turn decides whether to accept or reject the LOOT. >>> Before deciding, next-in-turn may hears partner's decision. >> >> Law 10C2: If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make >> his >> selection without consulting partner. > > And "...either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or > rquire its retraction..." (Law 55A) And while we're on the subject.... Ton writes in his commentary "In the case of a lead from the wrong hand by declarer, both defenders may accept that lead and they do so by making a statement to that effect. But if no such statement is made, the TD offers the player next in turn to the seat from which the wrong lead was played, the opportunity to accept it." I don't think a director gets called just for this, and I have no idea what the director should say in this situation, but Ton's advice does not explain to the defenders all of their options. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 14 01:33:55 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:33:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] To accept or not accept ceclarer's LOOT References: <000001ca01fb$565e4c40$031ae4c0$@no> Message-ID: <003301ca0412$648d8880$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick: > And while we're on the subject.... Ton writes in his commentary > > "In the case of a lead from the wrong hand by declarer, both defenders may > accept that lead and they do so by making a statement to that effect. But > if no such statement is made, the TD offers the player next in turn to the > seat from which the wrong lead was played, the opportunity to accept it." > > I don't think a director gets called just for this, and I have no idea > what the director should say in this situation, but Ton's advice does not > explain to the defenders all of their options. > +=+ Ton's is his personal commentary. However, I do feel uneasy about this statement. I would like it to say that 'either defender may accept that lead'. The use of 'both' could be read as implying that they may consult. The impression is reinforced by "they do so by making a statement to that effect" - this sounds like one statement made jointly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jul 14 01:43:59 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:43:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> <50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> <50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: See what I mean? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: rfrick at rfrick.info To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > Sorry to interfere in this lengthy and wordy subject. I find it outre > that even the least knowledge of any dialect of English is not enough to > fully answer the supposed problem. Oh well, without such "problems" there > would be so little to pass the time and miss the opportunity to > pontificate. Please read the ENTIRE Law 64 including "C", and see that no > further explanation is needed. No AMBIGUITY exists in the extant Law -- > it needs no further Laws Commentary or blessings from "on high"- just a > simple stepwise application of what the Law says to do. Anything beyond > that is, to me, quibbling and shows a serious lack of professionalism by > those knowing "C" exists EXACTLY FOR THE KIND OF SITUATION EXPRESSED AS A > "PROBLEM". I am not sure what the topic is here. But I can't resist the challenge. What about a dialect where the singular includes the plural? Then we would have "When, after any established revoke or revokes, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-ofending side is insufficiently compensated by this law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." > > Capitals for emphasis - not shouting. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Adam Wildavsky> > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:14 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Adam > Wildavsky>> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Thomas Dehn > >> wrote: > >> > >> Marvin L French >> > wrote: > >> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > >> > > >> > This came up on our ACBL Laws Commission mailing list. Has it been > >> > discussed on BLML? > >> > > >> > From: Peter Boyd < > >> > > >> > Suppose a Defender revokes twice in the same suit, while the > >> > Declarer is cashing side-siut winners in a trump contract. On > >> > the first winner, the defender discards a different side suit, > >> > and Declarer wins the trick. On the second winner the > >> > Defender ruffs in, and wins the trick. Assume the Defenders > >> > take at least one more trick later. > >> > > >> > Is there a one-trick penalty or a two-trick penalty? > >> > > >> > The laws say there is no penalty for a second revoke in the same > >> > suit. But, the necessary condition for there to be a two trick > penalty > >> > (the revoker wins the revoke trick) did not occur on the first > revoke, > >> > but did on the second. Even though there is no penalty for the > >> > second revoke, can it trigger the extra penalty, when the offending > >> > player wins that trick? Or, does the fact the the offender did not > win > >> > the first revoke trick limit the penalty to one trick. > >> > > >> > ############# > >> > > >> > "Penalty" is a naughty word now, it's "rectification." > >> > > >> > Law 64B2 says plainly that there is no rectification for a > >> > subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, adding that > >> > Law 64C may apply. > >> > > >> > Law 64C says the Director shall assign an adjusted score if he > deems > >> > that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated for > damage > >> > caused by the two revokes. No, absence of the two-trick > >> > rectification for the second revoke does not constitute "damage." > >> > >> Marv is right, of course. Getting the same number of > >> tricks you would have received had the irregularity not occurred > >> does not constitute "damage". > >> > >> I do not see the problem (other than the US culture of > >> dealing out severe punishments rather than fixing mistakes). > >> > >> L64C is fine. L64 does not mean that the NOS gets an additional trick > >> because of the revoke. L64 just provides a simple rectification > >> procedure that *sometimes* results in the NOS getting one trick > >> more than through normal play, but also *sometimes* results > >> in the NOS getting exactly the same number of tricks > >> as they would have through normal play. Especially, there > >> no longer is an automatic two-trick rectification if a card that > could > >> have been played to the revoke trick wins a later trick > >> (change in L64A2 in the 2007 laws). > > > > I am convinced that the situation is not as clear as Marvin and Thomas > > believe. Here's an example of a similar situation we've been using > > (thanks to Howie Weinstein and Chip Martel): > > > > Declarer (West) is in 4S on a heart lead. > > > > Jxxxx AKQxx > > AKx xxx > > Ax xxx > > Axx xx > > > > The normal result is 10 tricks, since he has 3 side suit losers. > > However, on the second round of trumps declarer revokes, throwing a > > club. The result with no further irregularities is now down one (same > > three losers, but a 1 trick penalty). However, if dummy plays a third > > round of trumps and declarer throws a second club (or diamond or > > heart), he can now make 11 tricks, converted back to 10 by the 1 trick > > penalty. > > > > Were the defenders damaged by the second revoke (and thus > > "insufficiently compensated")? If we consider the start of the hand, > > no: back to the original result. If instead we consider the situation > > before the second revoke, yes (the defenders were headed to down one). > > > > How would you rule, and why? > > > > If you would let declarer score up his game, what would you do if, > > when declarer pitched a second club, the defenders called for a TD and > > insisted that declarer follow suit instead? Everyone has shown out, so > > they know that someone has revoked! > > I wrote to Ton about this, and he pointed out that the question has > been asked and answered in his commentary on the 2007 laws, published > here: > > www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsCommentary.pdf> > > The short answer is that, as several posters have suggested, if the > second revoke produces a gain for the defenders over only revoking > once then the score is adjusted as it would have been had they only > revoked once. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky >> > www.tameware.com> > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090713/860dd984/attachment-0001.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 14 02:27:31 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:27:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] To accept or not accept ceclarer's LOOT References: <000001ca01fb$565e4c40$031ae4c0$@no> Message-ID: <008901ca0419$e3b390d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] To accept or not accept declarer's LOOT > >> I don't think a director gets called just for this, > +=+ Concerning this last remark please see Law 9B1 and Law 9B2. +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 02:35:25 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:35:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> <50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > See what I mean? > > Kojak Sorry, no. From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jul 14 02:57:05 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:57:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Guess I know where that unfortunately puts you in your ability to read simple English or your mandated reason to refuse to apply the TOTAL law when a revoke occurs. 1. Did a revoke occur which the Law says does not incur a penalty? 2. Is there a provision in the Law which tells you what to do when that happens? 3. What is expected of a qualified TD at this time? Boo. enough of my time on this circular but unreasonable thread. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerry Fusselman To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > See what I mean? > > Kojak Sorry, no. _______________________________________________ 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/20090714/a48c92f3/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 14 06:23:14 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:23:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> <50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:57:05 -0400, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Guess I know where that unfortunately puts you in your ability to read > simple English or your mandated reason to refuse to apply the TOTAL law > when a revoke occurs. > > 1. Did a revoke occur which the Law says does not incur a penalty? > > 2. Is there a provision in the Law which tells you what to do when that > happens? > > 3. What is expected of a qualified TD at this time? > > Boo. > enough of my time on this circular but unreasonable thread. This thread was doomed to be uninteresting, though IMO it did not become unpleasant until you entered. My understanding is that this issue was discussed on blml years ago and the "you-can't-gain-by-a-second-revoke" interpretation was unanimously accepted. So apparently everyone comes to that answer, with a careful reading of the laws, and it was just a matter of time until that point was communicated to all this time around. It also means that the law couldn't have been too clear. At least for the 1997 laws. Your mention of the cross-reference in 64B2, added to the 2008 laws, is very interesting. I am guessing it is there to try to make it clear how to handle the second revoke situation. However, it doesn't help if L64C is misunderstood, which I think it can be with "revokes" instead of "revoke". Also, this cross-reference implies (perhaps weakly) that the same cross-reference does NOT apply to L64B3 through L64B7. I know that can't be correct, if we are talking about how to rule. But one could wonder why the cross-reference was given only after L64B2 if it applied to the other L64B situations. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 14 13:06:24 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:06:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003f01ca0473$22c47150$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > Also, this cross-reference implies (perhaps weakly) that the > same cross-reference does NOT apply to L64B3 through > L64B7. I know that can't be correct, if we are talking about > how to rule. But one could wonder why the cross-reference > was given only after L64B2 if it applied to the other L64B > situations. << +=+ The cross reference in 64B2 may be exceptional because it was thought to be the only situation in 64B where the application of 64C might be unclear. The wording of 64C is explicit enough about application to revokes not subject to rectification. Earlier in the law book we are told that the omission of a cross reference does not limit the application of any law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jul 14 14:44:59 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:44:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I apologize for my frustration about a reading of the laws. As to my use of the word incompetent - I can't see how any other degree of competency could apply when it results from strangulation of language to arrive at a meaning that clearly cannot be supported by a simple law. I am exercised over the "I know what the law means, BUT.........." type of posting resulting in arguments that do nothing other than spread confusion and doubt to those who want to know how to do it right. To those looking under the bed for ghosts when administering our game gives them personal ego satisfaction, so be it, but it doesn't sell as competency as a TD. I fail to see how anyone can interpret the words of "C" "..... AFTER ANY ESTABLISHED REVOKE....." as meaning other than ANY regardless if it is singular or plural. It includes those which were only found out after the penalty period for a revoke expired. The reference to "C" in "B" simply reminds those who might get hung up on B2. To me, if anything could be improved on this entire law it is that the word ".....may....." should be removed from B2 or, better yet, the reference should be completely removed. I believe that cross-referencing should only be used when a DIFFERENT law is involved. "C" always applies to ALL established revokes, and as it states only leads to an adjustment of score when there is damage to the non-offending side. When a reference to another part of the same law leads to arguments about cross-referencing, limitations, etc., then we've departed from the effective use of the written word. My answer to this "thread" is READ THE ENTIRE LAW TO FIND OUT WHAT TO DO. codicil: be thankful for the unnecessary words meant to help in a particular situation like B2. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Frick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:57:05 -0400, WILLIAM SCHODER > wrote: > Guess I know where that unfortunately puts you in your ability to read > simple English or your mandated reason to refuse to apply the TOTAL law > when a revoke occurs. > > 1. Did a revoke occur which the Law says does not incur a penalty? > > 2. Is there a provision in the Law which tells you what to do when that > happens? > > 3. What is expected of a qualified TD at this time? > > Boo. > enough of my time on this circular but unreasonable thread. This thread was doomed to be uninteresting, though IMO it did not become unpleasant until you entered. My understanding is that this issue was discussed on blml years ago and the "you-can't-gain-by-a-second-revoke" interpretation was unanimously accepted. So apparently everyone comes to that answer, with a careful reading of the laws, and it was just a matter of time until that point was communicated to all this time around. It also means that the law couldn't have been too clear. At least for the 1997 laws. Your mention of the cross-reference in 64B2, added to the 2008 laws, is very interesting. I am guessing it is there to try to make it clear how to handle the second revoke situation. However, it doesn't help if L64C is misunderstood, which I think it can be with "revokes" instead of "revoke". Also, this cross-reference implies (perhaps weakly) that the same cross-reference does NOT apply to L64B3 through L64B7. I know that can't be correct, if we are talking about how to rule. But one could wonder why the cross-reference was given only after L64B2 if it applied to the other L64B situations. _______________________________________________ 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/20090714/21925362/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 14 15:33:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:33:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations Message-ID: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ________________________________ From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: 07/14/2009 8:45 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? Kojak: ...then we've departed from the effective use of the written word. Isn't that what "lawyering" is about? Fluxman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 14 15:35:13 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:35:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? Message-ID: <005d01ca0487$ebd03f70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > Savery, Newcomen, Watt > Observed when the water got hot - > Enthralment of steam > Their ultimate dream - > And quite a success, was it not?. > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:23 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke > number-of-tricks penalty? > > >> Also, this cross-reference implies (perhaps weakly) that the >> same cross-reference does NOT apply to L64B3 through >> L64B7. I know that can't be correct, if we are talking about >> how to rule. But one could wonder why the cross-reference >> was given only after L64B2 if it applied to the other L64B >> situations. > > << > +=+ The cross reference in 64B2 may be exceptional because it > was thought to be the only situation in 64B where the application > of 64C might be unclear. The wording of 64C is explicit enough > about application to revokes not subject to rectification. > Earlier in the law book we are told that the omission of a > cross reference does not limit the application of any law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 14 16:33:21 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:33:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 07:44 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > I apologize for my frustration about a reading of the laws. As to my use > of the word incompetent - I can't see how any other degree of competency > could apply when it results from strangulation of language to arrive at a > meaning that clearly cannot be supported by a simple law. I am exercised > over the "I know what the law means, BUT.........." type of posting > resulting in arguments that do nothing other than spread confusion and > doubt to those who want to know how to do it right. To those looking under > the bed for ghosts when administering our game gives them personal ego > satisfaction, so be it, but it doesn't sell as competency as a TD. > > I fail to see how anyone can interpret the words of "C" "..... AFTER ANY > ESTABLISHED REVOKE....." as meaning other than ANY regardless if it is > singular or plural. It includes those which were only found out after the > penalty period for a revoke expired. The reference to "C" in "B" simply > reminds those who might get hung up on B2. We are told that the construction of the law is simple. So when 64B says There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: "as in" carries the meaning 'for example'. Thus, it means that L64A as well L64C [and thus L12] do not apply to the named situations. For 'as in A' to be simple, and the law to mean certain revokes are to not be remedied via L64A- while leaving the possibility of being remedied via 64C, it then follows that wording of 64B must then be the simple[r], 'The following established revokes are not subject to L64A:..' But it is not. As such, for as clearly as L64C instructs to satisfy L12, L64B gives emphatic instruction that mutes L64C's instruction in those named situations. Yet, 64B 64C are present. regards roger pewick > To me, if anything could be improved on this entire law it is that the > word ".....may....." should be removed from B2 or, better yet, the > reference should be completely removed. I believe that cross-referencing > should only be used when a DIFFERENT law is involved. "C" always applies > to ALL established revokes, and as it states only leads to an adjustment > of score when there is damage to the non-offending side. When a reference > to another part of the same law leads to arguments about > cross-referencing, limitations, etc., then we've departed from the > effective use of the written word. > > My answer to this "thread" is READ THE ENTIRE LAW TO FIND OUT WHAT TO DO. > codicil: be thankful for the unnecessary words meant to help in a > particular situation like B2. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Frick > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:57:05 -0400, WILLIAM SCHODER > > > wrote: > > > Guess I know where that unfortunately puts you in your ability to read > > simple English or your mandated reason to refuse to apply the TOTAL law > > when a revoke occurs. > > > > 1. Did a revoke occur which the Law says does not incur a penalty? > > > > 2. Is there a provision in the Law which tells you what to do when > that > > happens? > > > > 3. What is expected of a qualified TD at this time? > > > > Boo. > > enough of my time on this circular but unreasonable thread. > > This thread was doomed to be uninteresting, though IMO it did not become > unpleasant until you entered. My understanding is that this issue was > discussed on blml years ago and the "you-can't-gain-by-a-second-revoke" > interpretation was unanimously accepted. So apparently everyone comes to > that answer, with a careful reading of the laws, and it was just a matter > of time until that point was communicated to all this time around. > > It also means that the law couldn't have been too clear. At least for the > 1997 laws. Your mention of the cross-reference in 64B2, added to the 2008 > laws, is very interesting. I am guessing it is there to try to make it > clear how to handle the second revoke situation. However, it doesn't help > if L64C is misunderstood, which I think it can be with "revokes" instead > of "revoke". > > Also, this cross-reference implies (perhaps weakly) that the same > cross-reference does NOT apply to L64B3 through L64B7. I know that can't > be correct, if we are talking about how to rule. But one could wonder why > the cross-reference was given only after L64B2 if it applied to the other > L64B situations. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 14 17:04:38 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:04:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5C9E86.60703@t-online.de> Roger Pewick schrieb: > > We are told that the construction of the law is simple. So when 64B says > > There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: > > "as in" carries the meaning 'for example'. My dictionary shows several meanings for the phrase in question. Seems to me to be a case of lots of peoples divided by a common language... Why you want to restrict your interpretation of the passage in question to something going against the practice of decades is quite beyond me. The intent has not changed. I realize that English is a language of very fine nuances, but I see no need to search for "arcane" (as others have named it) readings of sufficiently clear texts, just to make a point. I submit that there is no extant language in which any law of rules text could be put down without someone finding a different interpretation of that text than the people who set it down. That being the case (IMO), I sugest we concentrate on what is _meant_, rather than on what could be read from it. regards Matthias > > Thus, it means that L64A as well L64C [and thus L12] do not apply to the > named situations. For 'as in A' to be simple, and the law to mean certain > revokes are to not be remedied via L64A- while leaving the possibility of > being remedied via 64C, it then follows that wording of 64B must then be the > simple[r], 'The following established revokes are not subject to L64A:..' > But it is not. > > > As such, for as clearly as L64C instructs to satisfy L12, L64B gives > emphatic instruction that mutes L64C's instruction in those named > situations. Yet, 64B 64C are present. > > regards > roger pewick > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 14 17:34:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:34:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002101ca0498$929b6cc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > We are told that the construction of the law is simple. > So when 64B says > > There is no rectification as in A following an established > revoke: > > "as in" carries the meaning 'for example'. > +=+ In the above assertion there is a lack of understanding of the usage of 'as' Inter alia the dictionary informs us that 'as' is used to identify extent, amount, etc. 'rectification as in A' means 'to the extent that rectification is set out in A'. It places a limitation on the area of 'rectification' to which the statement refers. The statement in the preamble to B has no impact upon 64C. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 14 17:54:23 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:54:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <4A5C9E86.60703@t-online.de> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <4A5C9E86.60703@t-online.de> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Matthias Berghaus" Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:04 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > Roger Pewick schrieb: > >> >> We are told that the construction of the law is simple. So when 64B says >> >> There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: >> >> "as in" carries the meaning 'for example'. > > My dictionary shows several meanings for the phrase in question. Seems > to me to be a case of lots of peoples divided by a common language... > > Why you want to restrict your interpretation of the passage in question > to something going against the practice of decades is quite beyond me. > The intent has not changed. I realize that English is a language of very > fine nuances, but I see no need to search for "arcane" (as others have > named it) readings of sufficiently clear texts, just to make a point. > > I submit that there is no extant language in which any law of rules text > could be put down without someone finding a different interpretation of > that text than the people who set it down. That being the case (IMO), > I > sugest we concentrate on what is _meant_, rather than on what could be > read from it. I suggest that the concentration be placed on the words and what they say to intelligent as well as not so intelligent players. And if the words do not mean what their crafters intended then they do not mean what their crafters intended. There is something to be said of they that twist their minds to translate what is written into something that it is not because they are told that the meaning is what it is not. I resist the temptation to do so. We are given a Gordian Knot which I recognize as a Gordian Knot and I say so in the face of many that insist otherwise. regards roger pewick > regards > Matthias > >> >> Thus, it means that L64A as well L64C [and thus L12] do not apply to the >> named situations. For 'as in A' to be simple, and the law to mean >> certain >> revokes are to not be remedied via L64A- while leaving the possibility of >> being remedied via 64C, it then follows that wording of 64B must then be >> the >> simple[r], 'The following established revokes are not subject to L64A:..' >> But it is not. >> >> >> As such, for as clearly as L64C instructs to satisfy L12, L64B gives >> emphatic instruction that mutes L64C's instruction in those named >> situations. Yet, 64B 64C are present. >> >> regards >> roger pewick From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 14 18:14:57 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:14:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> <50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <4A5C9E86.60703@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:54:23 -0400, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:04 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > >> Roger Pewick schrieb: >> >>> >>> We are told that the construction of the law is simple. So when 64B >>> says >>> >>> There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: >>> >>> "as in" carries the meaning 'for example'. >> >> My dictionary shows several meanings for the phrase in question. Seems >> to me to be a case of lots of peoples divided by a common language... >> >> Why you want to restrict your interpretation of the passage in question >> to something going against the practice of decades is quite beyond me. >> The intent has not changed. I realize that English is a language of very >> fine nuances, but I see no need to search for "arcane" (as others have >> named it) readings of sufficiently clear texts, just to make a point. >> >> I submit that there is no extant language in which any law of rules text >> could be put down without someone finding a different interpretation of >> that text than the people who set it down. That being the case (IMO), > >> I >> sugest we concentrate on what is _meant_, rather than on what could be >> read from it. > > I suggest that the concentration be placed on the words and what they > say to > intelligent as well as not so intelligent players. And if the words do > not > mean what their crafters intended then they do not mean what their > crafters > intended. > > There is something to be said of they that twist their minds to translate > what is written into something that it is not because they are told that > the > meaning is what it is not. I resist the temptation to do so. We are > given > a Gordian Knot which I recognize as a Gordian Knot and I say so in the > face > of many that insist otherwise. > > regards > roger pewick In this case, the heading is "No Rectification". That makes the first sentence "There is no rectification as in A above..." merely redundant. So that sentence does not preclude the use of L65C for rectification -- but the heading does. (Analogy: "No one was at the party. John was not at the party.") I agree with Roger. People do use the lawbook to try to understand the laws, so it isn't right if you have to already know the laws in order to understand them. And AFAIK, the intended meaning of the authors is not relevant. Here, I think L64C is sufficiently clear that one can work one's way around the incorrect heading to L64B. But I am sympathetic to directors who do not. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 14 18:27:47 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:27:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 64B7 (each side "revokes") Message-ID: I am pretty sure I know how to handle L64B7, when each side has revoked. But that would seem to have worse problems than L64B2. Without knowing what the ruling should be, I would have assumed that when both sides revoke, there is no non-offending side. If there is no non-offending side, L64C wouldn't apply. Again, we are back to the situation of whether L64C applies to the revokes as a batch or should be applied to them one by one. One point of L64B7 is to say that they are not treated one by one. That would exacerbate the problem of seeing that they need to be treated individually in L64B7. I take back my confidence in the nonambiguity of this law. Declarer is on track to make 9 tricks in no trump. Declarer revokes (established) in a way that does not help him, so now the projected outcome is the same 9 tricks minus 1 for rectification equals 8. Then the defense revokes (established) in a way that gains them one trick. Declarer hence takes 8 tricks. What is the final result? I am assuming that if the first (established) revoke gains declarer a trick, and the second (established) revoke doesn't help the defense, then the table result of making 10 tricks is adjusted to making 9 tricks. Right? And I am pretty sure the answer to the first question is that declarer gets only 8 tricks, but I wouldn't have gotten that from the lawbook. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Jul 14 20:14:22 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:14:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_64B7_=28each_side_=22revokes=22=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1MQmWE-07onDs0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> From: "Robert Frick" > I am pretty sure I know how to handle L64B7, when each side has > revoked. I'm pretty sure of the contrary. > But that would seem to have worse problems than L64B2. > > Without knowing what the ruling should be, I would have assumed that > when both sides revoke, there is no non-offending side. If there is no > non-offending side, L64C wouldn't apply. ?? What makes you believe that two offences make no offenders ?? > Again, we are back to the situation of whether L64C applies to the > revokes as a batch or should be applied to them one by one. One point > of L64B7 is to say that they are not treated one by one. That would > exacerbate the problem of seeing that they need to be treated > individually in L64B7. > > > I take back my confidence in the nonambiguity of this law. Declarer is > on track to make 9 tricks in no trump. Declarer revokes (established) > in a way that does not help him, so now the projected outcome is the > same 9 tricks minus 1 for rectification equals 8. Then the defense > revokes (established) in a way that gains them one trick. Declarer > hence takes 8 tricks. What is the final result? 9 tricks, see Law 64 C > I am assuming that if the first (established) revoke gains declarer a > trick, and the second (established) revoke doesn't help the defense, > then the table result of making 10 tricks is adjusted to making 9 > tricks. Right? Yesss !!! > And I am pretty sure the answer to the first question is that declarer > gets only 8 tricks, but I wouldn't have gotten that from the lawbook. That's the problem, but that's not a problem of the laws. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 14 21:16:56 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:16:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 64B7 (each side "revokes") In-Reply-To: <1MQmWE-07onDs0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <1MQmWE-07onDs0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:14:22 -0400, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" >> I am pretty sure I know how to handle L64B7, when each side has >> revoked. > > I'm pretty sure of the contrary. I agree. > >> But that would seem to have worse problems than L64B2. >> >> Without knowing what the ruling should be, I would have assumed that >> when both sides revoke, there is no non-offending side. If there is no >> non-offending side, L64C wouldn't apply. > > ?? What makes you believe that two offences make no offenders ?? No non-offenders. I am not saying that is right, I am saying that seems like a plausible thing to think. > >> Again, we are back to the situation of whether L64C applies to the >> revokes as a batch or should be applied to them one by one. One point >> of L64B7 is to say that they are not treated one by one. That would >> exacerbate the problem of seeing that they need to be treated >> individually in L64B7. >> >> >> I take back my confidence in the nonambiguity of this law. Declarer is >> on track to make 9 tricks in no trump. Declarer revokes (established) >> in a way that does not help him, so now the projected outcome is the >> same 9 tricks minus 1 for rectification equals 8. Then the defense >> revokes (established) in a way that gains them one trick. Declarer >> hence takes 8 tricks. What is the final result? > > 9 tricks, see Law 64 C I have L64C in front of me. The problem isn't seeing it. > >> I am assuming that if the first (established) revoke gains declarer a >> trick, and the second (established) revoke doesn't help the defense, >> then the table result of making 10 tricks is adjusted to making 9 >> tricks. Right? > > Yesss !!! > >> And I am pretty sure the answer to the first question is that declarer >> gets only 8 tricks, but I wouldn't have gotten that from the lawbook. > > That's the problem, but that's not a problem of the laws. There is no problem with the laws that you and I would publically state opposite opinions? Are you saying that all directors would rule the same on this issue? Here was my thinking. 1. If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke. 2. The position after the first revoke is that the declarer is on the way to get 8 tricks. 3. With no rectification for the second revoke (or first revoke), declarer ends up with 8 tricks. 4. Therefore, there is no adjustment for equity on either revoke. I am not saying that is right. It was the path I followed, and it still seems reasonable to me, and I would not blame others for following that path. The original question was whether L64B7+L64C is straightforward to apply. From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 22:45:43 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:45:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0907141345v222e16a3nef30e342e4de12c4@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Grattan wrote: > > Please note that the following are Brown Sticker > conventions: > 1. Any opening bid of 2C through 3S that shows an > unspecified minor if it does not guarantee a solid suit. > 2. A Multi 2 Diamond opening bid that shows precisely > a five card major in a hand that always includes a second suit. > In some cases players perhaps use this together with classic > natural Weak Twos made on a six card suit. > The guarantee of a second suit goes outside of the > description of the Multi 2D in the Conventions Booklet so > the convention is not the Multi 2D 'as described in the > Conventions Booklet' and the second EXCEPTION in > section 2.4(ii) of the WBF Systems Policy does not apply. Hi Grattan Could you please clarify something for for me regarding item #2 Is the word "precisely" operational? Suppose that I played a 2D opening that shows 5+ cards in either major (but also promises a 4+ card side suit). The syntax that you've chosen suggests that this would not be a BSC because the bid doesn't promise (precisely) 5 cards in an unknown major. >From my own perspective, I would think that the salient distinction is that the 2D opening promises a 4+ side suit rather than the specific length of the major rather -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090714/c18001ee/attachment.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 14 23:32:31 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:32:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <4A5C9E86.60703@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A5CF96F.8070803@t-online.de> Roger Pewick schrieb: > > > I suggest that the concentration be placed on the words and what they say to > intelligent as well as not so intelligent players. And if the words do not > mean what their crafters intended then they do not mean what their crafters > intended. So who is the judge of what the crafters intendend, or what their words mean? Shouldn`t we rely on the testimony of those crafters? We can't ask Shakespeare, but we can ask Grattan, Kojak, Ton and others ( in no particular order, just naming those who come easily to the mind of this BLML reader, because they post here). > > There is something to be said of they that twist their minds to translate > what is written into something that it is not because they are told that the > meaning is what it is not. And equally there is something to be said of those that insist on certain interpretations ( or translations, the border is thin) when it suits their argument, when another translation would well fit common usage, and would lead to a reading which has been used for quite some time. I do not resist temptation well, so I say that it is to the detriment of the game to read the text with a closed mind. It is well to point out certain passages that may be read in certain ways, and so may lead to misunderstandings and confusion, and suggest remedies, which you have done. I can find no fault in that, and I trust that nobody else can, either. But that you assert that a phrase as flexible as "as in" (where I think that the word "as" has to be read apart from "in 64A", making clear the intention, and leaving no room for doubt) is to be read in one specific way ( flying in the face of the practice of long years) is something absolutely beyond me. I am a firm supporter of all who ask for clearer language, and the passage in question could be improved (as you have shown by reading it - IMO - wrong), but much can be done by asking oneself: "how is this supposed to work, what is the intention behind this?", and I find that I can solve most mysteries that this text holds. In fact I often refer to the English text when I am in doubt, and I am not a native speaker of the English language, which can probably be noticed in every other sentence I write. Regards Matthias > I resist the temptation to do so. We are given > a Gordian Knot which I recognize as a Gordian Knot and I say so in the face > of many that insist otherwise. > > regards > roger pewick > From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 23:34:44 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:34:44 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/15 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott (also ? ? ? ? ? ? ?perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > Savery, Newcomen, Watt > Observed when the water got hot - > Enthralment of steam > Their ultimate dream - > And quite a success, was it not?. > ********************************** > +=+ BLML, > The preliminaries for Sao Paulo have produced a > couple of Brown Sticker problems. Readers may > be interested in the following clarification. > [QUOTE > ? ? ? ?From a number of submissions it appears that there > are two Brown Sticker conventions that players are failing > to recognize as such. > ? ? ? ?Please note that the following are Brown Sticker > conventions: > ? ? ? ?1. Any opening bid of 2C through 3S that shows an > unspecified minor if it does not guarantee a solid suit. > ? ? ? ?2. A Multi 2 Diamond opening bid that shows precisely > a five card major in a hand that always includes a second suit. > In some cases players perhaps use this together with classic > natural Weak Twos made on a six card suit. > ? ? ? ? ? The guarantee of a second suit goes outside of the > description of the Multi 2D in the Conventions Booklet so > the convention is not the Multi 2D 'as described in the > Conventions Booklet' and the second EXCEPTION in > section 2.4(ii) of the WBF Systems Policy does not apply. > ? ? (N.B. The Conventions Booklet is now ?incorporated > as the 'systems booklet' in the Guide to Completion.) > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?UNQUOTE] > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ?+=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > I am not convinced this is a valid interpretation of "Multi-2D". " "MULTI 2D(... weak 2M; or ... ) An artificial opening bid with several meanings. The ONLY weak type must be a weak-two in a major suit. Specify with one descriptive word in the NAME LINE before the word "weak" ... your STYLE for the weak 2M type: standard (i.e. fair six-card suit), or undisciplined (i.e. bad six-card suit or often fair five-card suit acceptable) or random (anything is acceptable). You may use a more descriptive adjective. After this, replace the word "or" with the strong hand types, using semi-colons. Here is a proper entry on the card: e.g. MULTI 2D(random weak 2M; 17-24 3-suiter; 25+ BAL) (Inside the card), you must include a full description of range and style for the weak type. " I do not see anything in the WBF description that disallows a style where you only open "5-card suit and not balanced" so therefore effectively having a second suit. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 23:42:36 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:42:36 +1200 Subject: [BLML] WBF Conventions Booklet Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907141442n49ae77ccm9a1a2109dd863c14@mail.gmail.com> The WBF Conventions Booklet pdf file that can be found on the internet seems to be encrypted so that one cannot copy easily from it. This is what I get when I copy the title "*8,'(72&203/(7,212)7+( :%)&219(17,21&$5' $1'6833/(0(17$5<6+((76" which is supposed to say "Guide to completion of the WBF Convention Card and Supplementary Sheets" Does anyone know who created the original and if there is available a version that is not encrypted. I would rather work with the PDF than the WORD version. Thanks -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From adam at irvine.com Tue Jul 14 23:52:56 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:52:56 -0700 Subject: [BLML] WBF Conventions Booklet In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:42:36 +1200." <2a1c3a560907141442n49ae77ccm9a1a2109dd863c14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200907142151.OAA18445@mailhub.irvine.com> > The WBF Conventions Booklet pdf file that can be found on the internet > seems to be encrypted so that one cannot copy easily from it. > > This is what I get when I copy the title "*8,'(72&203/(7,212)7+( > :%)&219(17,21&$5' > $1'6833/(0(17$5<6+((76" which is supposed to say "Guide to > completion of the WBF Convention Card and Supplementary Sheets" > > Does anyone know who created the original and if there is available a > version that is not encrypted. I would rather work with the PDF than > the WORD version. Did you try this? http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/WBFInformation/policies-regulations/GuidetoCompletionWBFCC.pdf It seems to work for me. Is it what you're looking for? -- Adam From bbickford at charter.net Wed Jul 15 00:09:23 2009 From: bbickford at charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:09:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] WBF Conventions Booklet References: <200907142151.OAA18445@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6E7662D71115453A9157E3B36ED07DAD@D32K5JC1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 17:52 Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Conventions Booklet > >> The WBF Conventions Booklet pdf file that can be found on the internet >> seems to be encrypted so that one cannot copy easily from it. >> >> This is what I get when I copy the title "*8,'(72&203/(7,212)7+( >> :%)&219(17,21&$5' >> $1'6833/(0(17$5<6+((76" which is supposed to say "Guide to >> completion of the WBF Convention Card and Supplementary Sheets" >> >> Does anyone know who created the original and if there is available a >> version that is not encrypted. I would rather work with the PDF than >> the WORD version. > > Did you try this? > > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/WBFInformation/policies-regulations/GuidetoCompletionWBFCC.pdf > > It seems to work for me. Is it what you're looking for? > > -- Adam > __I went to this URL and attempted to copy the title to Wordpad. I got > the same garbage reported above. I wonder if this is characteristic of > ODF if you only have acrobat reader???? Cheers........................./Bill Bickford _____________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 1269 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 15 00:39:46 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:39:46 -0700 Subject: [BLML] WBF Conventions Booklet In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:09:23 EDT." <6E7662D71115453A9157E3B36ED07DAD@D32K5JC1> Message-ID: <200907142238.PAA18970@mailhub.irvine.com> > > > >> The WBF Conventions Booklet pdf file that can be found on the internet > >> seems to be encrypted so that one cannot copy easily from it. > >> > >> This is what I get when I copy the title "*8,'(72&203/(7,212)7+( > >> :%)&219(17,21&$5' > >> $1'6833/(0(17$5<6+((76" which is supposed to say "Guide to > >> completion of the WBF Convention Card and Supplementary Sheets" > >> > >> Does anyone know who created the original and if there is available a > >> version that is not encrypted. I would rather work with the PDF than > >> the WORD version. > > > > Did you try this? > > > > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/WBFInformation/policies-regulations/GuidetoCompletionWBFCC.pdf > > > > It seems to work for me. Is it what you're looking for? > > > > -- Adam > > __I went to this URL and attempted to copy the title to Wordpad. I got > > the same garbage reported above. I wonder if this is characteristic of > > ODF if you only have acrobat reader???? OK, I see what is being asked for. Yes, I also get the same behavior. I don't think it's actually "encrypted"; rather, the PDF file may be relying on a custom font or something. In fact, if you look at the garbage you're copying: *8,'(^72^&203/(7,21^2)^7+( GUIDE TO COMPLETION OF THE it appears that each letter of the title translates to a specific garbage character, i.e. all the T's look like "7", all the O's look like "2", all the E's look like "(", etc. This makes it appear that the PDF author, for some reason, was using some sort of customized character set. In theory, if you want to get a text file from this, it should be possible to figure out the translation for every character and then write a small program (or use Perl or sed or something) to translate it to something readable. -- Adam From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 15 01:41:51 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:41:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations I do not see anything in the WBF description that disallows a style where you only open "5-card suit and not balanced" so therefore effectively having a second suit. What disallows it is the Systems Policy requirement that the convention must conform exactly to the description in the Guide to Completion for the exception to apply. This prohibits addition of anything such as the known presence of a second suit or the unbalanced condition. ~ Grattan ~ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 15 01:49:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:49:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0907141345v222e16a3nef30e342e4de12c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004d01ca04dd$cbfd7770$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan EndicottFrom my own perspective, I would think that the salient distinction is that the 2D opening promises a 4+ side suit rather than the specific length of the major rather .................................................................................... +=+ I have dealt specifically with what we know. But any multi that is known to have a second suit does not comply with the systems booklet and consequently does not enjoy the benefit of the exception. It is therefore Brown Sticker. Some disclosures fail to say clearly that there will always be a second suit; the fact is uncovered upon investigation. The description given in the systems booklet is what governs the application of the regulation, whether or not a player considers it a valid description of the convention. Failure to comply with that description, for example by adding to it, makes the method BS. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 02:04:14 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:04:14 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/15 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott (also ? ? ? ? ? ? ?perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:34 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > > I do not see anything in the WBF description that > disallows a style where you only open "5-card suit > and not balanced" so therefore effectively having > a second suit. > > What disallows it is the Systems Policy requirement that > the convention must conform exactly to the description > in the Guide to Completion for the exception to apply. > This prohibits addition of anything such as the known > presence of a second suit or the unbalanced condition. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Is the restriction "will not have a side four-card major" allowed. There is nothing stating this in the system book. It seems logically equivalent to "will have a side four-card minor" to me. Basically they are all simply matters of style. And the booklet acknowledges the possibility of different styles without mentioning any restrictions on that style. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 15 03:03:18 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:03:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations Basically they are all simply matters of style. And the booklet acknowledges the possibility of different styles without mentioning any restrictions on that style. +=+ Within the terms of Law 40B2(a) they are 'method', not 'style and judgement'. +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 03:10:26 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:10:26 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907141810j327ae525jc1c63af37057647c@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/15 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott (also ? ? ? ? ? ? ?perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > I hear that Intel makes 'net' profits. > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:04 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > > Basically they are all simply matters of style. ?And the booklet > acknowledges the possibility of different styles without mentioning > any restrictions on that style. > > +=+ Within the terms of Law 40B2(a) they are 'method', not > ? ? ? ? 'style and judgement'. +=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > So you are saying you are not allowed to play the "method" that 2D Multi denies a side four-card major. I think most people will find that an interesting interpretation. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 03:49:03 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:49:03 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/15 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott (also ? ? ? ? ? ? ?perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > I hear that Intel makes 'net' profits. > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:04 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > > Basically they are all simply matters of style. ?And the booklet > acknowledges the possibility of different styles without mentioning > any restrictions on that style. > > +=+ Within the terms of Law 40B2(a) they are 'method', not > ? ? ? ? 'style and judgement'. +=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Lets try this another way. What you appear to be saying is that: 1. Weak two with the restriction no side four card major is "style" but 2. Weak two with the restriction no balanced hands is "method" To me this seems to be twisting the wording after the fact rather than ruling on what is actually written in the regulation. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 15 10:16:36 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:16:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:04 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > > Basically they are all simply matters of style. And the booklet > acknowledges the possibility of different styles without mentioning > any restrictions on that style. > > +=+ Within the terms of Law 40B2(a) they are 'method', not > 'style and judgement'. +=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Lets try this another way. What you appear to be saying is that: 1. Weak two with the restriction no side four card major is "style" but 2. Weak two with the restriction no balanced hands is "method" To me this seems to be twisting the wording after the fact rather than ruling on what is actually written in the regulation. +=+ Wayne, I think you misinterpret what I say. Style and judgement is idiosyncratic and relates to the tendencies of the individual within the partnership method. Method is what the partnership agrees, explicitly or implicitly, to be its partnership understandings. Method may be regulated. Style and judgement may not be regulated. The WBF Systems Policy is regulation of method. It defines certain partnership understandings as Brown Sticker conventions and then excludes the use of these in certain of its competitions. If the partnership understanding conforms exactly to a specified description the multi 2D is the subject of an exception . If it fails to conform to that description the exception does not apply and the method is designated a Brown Sticker convention under the general provisions of the regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 15 10:49:14 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:49:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A5D980A.6070305@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Wayne, > I think you misinterpret what I say. No Grattan, I think we have all understood exactly what you are saying. The problem is that there is no logic in what you are saying. In Belgium, it is forbidden to have the possibility of a five card-suit (major) in a Multi. Well, it would make the Multi non-brown. If I understand correctly, that restriction is not valid in international play. OK, no problem. Now of course if I want to play that all my Multis have exactly a six-card suit, then that must be allowed, and of course I will tell my opponents. And, if I want to add a rule that a 3-card suit in the other major is forbidden, that too is allowed. Now if I instead want to play that all my Multis show exactly a five-card suit, is that allowed? According to the regulation, I don't see it being disallowed. And if I then want to add further restrictions, as fi a 3-card in the other major, and a 3-3 in the minors, why should that be disallowed. Wayne's question is very valid: why are certain additions to the deescription of the Multi allowed, and others not? I think the problem starts with the formulation of the allowed non-brown multi: there should be some mention of "one-suiter" in there, preferably with a mention of "six cards or occasional 5". Herman. > Style and judgement is idiosyncratic and relates to the > tendencies of the individual within the partnership method. > Method is what the partnership agrees, explicitly or > implicitly, to be its partnership understandings. > Method may be regulated. Style and judgement may > not be regulated. > The WBF Systems Policy is regulation of method. > It defines certain partnership understandings as Brown > Sticker conventions and then excludes the use of these in > certain of its competitions. > If the partnership understanding conforms exactly > to a specified description the multi 2D is the subject of > an exception . If it fails to conform to that description the > exception does not apply and the method is designated a > Brown Sticker convention under the general provisions of > the regulation. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 11:05:13 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:05:13 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/15 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott (also ? ? ? ? ? ? ?perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > I hear that Intel makes 'net' profits. > ********************************** >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Wayne Burrows" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:04 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations >> >> Basically they are all simply matters of style. And the booklet >> acknowledges the possibility of different styles without mentioning >> any restrictions on that style. >> >> +=+ Within the terms of Law 40B2(a) they are 'method', not >> 'style and judgement'. +=+ >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > Lets try this another way. > > What you appear to be saying is that: > > 1. ?Weak two with the restriction no side four card major is "style" > > but > > 2. ?Weak two with the restriction no balanced hands is "method" > > To me this seems to be twisting the wording after the fact rather than > ruling on what is actually written in the regulation. > > +=+ Wayne, > ? ? ? ?I think you misinterpret what I say. > ? ? ? ?Style and judgement is idiosyncratic and relates to the > tendencies of the individual within the partnership method. > ? ? ? ?Method is what the partnership agrees, explicitly or > implicitly, to be its partnership understandings. > ? ? ? ?Method may be regulated. Style and judgement may > not be regulated. > ? ? ? ?The WBF Systems Policy is regulation of method. > ? ? ? ?It defines certain partnership understandings as Brown > Sticker conventions and then excludes the use of these in > certain of its competitions. > ? ? ? ? If the partnership understanding conforms exactly > to a specified description the multi 2D is the subject of > an exception . If it fails to conform to that description the > exception does not apply and the method is designated a > Brown Sticker convention under the general provisions of > the regulation. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > I think I understand perfectly well what you say. But I do not believe that what you say conforms to the regulations. The MULTI description makes no mention of suit lengths, 5, 6, 7 in the long suit, nor does it make any mention of suit lengths in side suits. It is 'normal' for many to exclude as a matter of partnership agreement the presence of a side four-card major in a weak two. The MULTI exactly as written makes no mention of this exclusion therefore by your arguement this would be an illegal agreement. Alternatively if this exclusion is allowed even though it is not explicitly written in the MULTI exactly as described I can see no reason why an alternative exclusion such as 'not balanced' would be disallowed. The description of MULTI only stipulates that we must have a weak two in a major. Where therein does it restrict the type of weak two in a major? It is not there. Therefore I do not believe it is proper after the issue of the regulations to impose additional restrictions. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 15 11:06:56 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:06:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5D980A.6070305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005c01ca052c$48fed2c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > Grattan wrote: >> >> >> +=+ Wayne, >> I think you misinterpret what I say. > > No Grattan, I think we have all understood exactly > what you are saying. > > The problem is that there is no logic in what you > are saying. > +=+ I do not recall having claimed logicality. I have referred to the WBF regulation and the way in which it applies - and will be applied in Sao Paulo. Whatever views I hold are subordinated to the official position handed down to me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 15 11:30:51 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:30:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5DA1CB.9080603@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : (from Grattan) >> Please note that the following are Brown Sticker >> conventions: >> 1. Any opening bid of 2C through 3S that shows an >> unspecified minor if it does not guarantee a solid suit. >> AG : not IMOBO. It would only be the case if the opening is weak. I know a pair who opens 2C with 5+ major and 19+, or some strong NT range, and 2D with 6+ minor and 18+, or some strong NT range. This isn't BSC. > " > "MULTI 2D(... weak 2M; or ... ) > An artificial opening bid with several meanings. The ONLY weak type > must be a weak-two in a major suit. > Specify with one descriptive word in the NAME LINE before the word > "weak" ... your STYLE for the weak 2M type: standard (i.e. fair > six-card suit), or undisciplined (i.e. bad six-card suit or often fair > five-card suit acceptable) or random (anything is acceptable). You may > use a more descriptive adjective. After this, replace the word "or" > with the strong hand types, using semi-colons. Here is a proper entry > on the card: > > e.g. MULTI 2D(random weak 2M; 17-24 3-suiter; 25+ BAL) > > (Inside the card), you must include a full description of range and > style for the weak type. > " > > I do not see anything in the WBF description that disallows a style > where you only open "5-card suit and not balanced" so therefore > effectively having a second suit. > AG : the common interpretation is that "weak two" implies "showing one suit", hence one doesn't need it to be specified once again ; however, what goes without saying is better understood when said, so I would welcome a more precise deifinition. And even if "5+ card unbalanced" is a "weak 2", perhaps "5 cards exactly and unbalanced" isn't. After all, you wouldn't qualify Wilkosz 2D as "weak two" ... Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 15 11:32:54 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:32:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560907141810j327ae525jc1c63af37057647c@mail.gmail.com> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141810j327ae525jc1c63af37057647c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5DA246.3080904@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > 2009/7/15 Grattan : > >> Grattan Endicott> (also > perhaps permanently suspended) >> ********************************** >> I hear that Intel makes 'net' profits. >> ********************************** >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Wayne Burrows" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:04 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations >> >> Basically they are all simply matters of style. And the booklet >> acknowledges the possibility of different styles without mentioning >> any restrictions on that style. >> >> +=+ Within the terms of Law 40B2(a) they are 'method', not >> 'style and judgement'. +=+ >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > So you are saying you are not allowed to play the "method" that 2D > Multi denies a side four-card major. > > I think most people will find that an interesting interpretation. > > AG : not quite. you are not allowed to play the "method" that there will be neither a 4-card major nor a 6th card in your main suit. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 15 11:43:15 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:43:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5D980A.6070305@skynet.be> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5D980A.6070305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A5DA4B3.5090803@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > No Grattan, I think we have all understood exactly what you are saying. > > The problem is that there is no logic in what you are saying. > > In Belgium, it is forbidden to have the possibility of a five card-suit > (major) in a Multi. Well, it would make the Multi non-brown. > AG :to the contrary, it would make it brown. > If I understand correctly, that restriction is not valid in > international play. OK, no problem. > > Now of course if I want to play that all my Multis have exactly a > six-card suit, then that must be allowed, and of course I will tell my > opponents. > And, if I want to add a rule that a 3-card suit in the other major is > forbidden, that too is allowed. > > Now if I instead want to play that all my Multis show exactly a > five-card suit, is that allowed? According to the regulation, I don't > see it being disallowed. > > And if I then want to add further restrictions, as fi a 3-card in the > other major, and a 3-3 in the minors, why should that be disallowed. > > Wayne's question is very valid: why are certain additions to the > deescription of the Multi allowed, and others not? > AG : because a specific, classical, type of Multi has been deemed known enough to be non-brown, while others aren't. I don't like this, /sed lex/. > I think the problem starts with the formulation of the allowed non-brown > multi: there should be some mention of "one-suiter" in there, preferably > with a mention of "six cards or occasional 5". > AG : not very useful. It would disallow opening 2D with 6M/4m, and that's strange (or worse). I would very much prefer the indication that a Multi should show a 6-card or strong 5-card, and that additional requirements are left to the players. (see Belgian definition of non-alertable jump overcall). The main problem is that opening 2D only on M/m two-suiters give an davantage that opponents may not be aware of : the opportunity to bid 2D-X-p to say "pass if you happen to hold 4D". Since BSC means "unexpected consequences and difficult to defend against", this isn't at all absurd. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 15 12:37:18 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:37:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5D980A.6070305@skynet.be> <005c01ca052c$48fed2c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A5DB685.6000203@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > > >> Grattan wrote: >>> >>> +=+ Wayne, >>> I think you misinterpret what I say. >> No Grattan, I think we have all understood exactly >> what you are saying. >> >> The problem is that there is no logic in what you >> are saying. >> > +=+ I do not recall having claimed logicality. I have > referred to the WBF regulation and the way in which > it applies - and will be applied in Sao Paulo. > Whatever views I hold are subordinated to the > official position handed down to me. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > There is no need for logicality, per se. But if you then apply logic to ban a certain kind of extension, and you do not apply the same logic and allow another extension, then you are not making sense. It would be OK, IMO, to state that the RA has banned the use of the (4-card minor promised-Multi), but it is not OK to state that this logically follows from the regulation as written. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 15 13:28:47 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:28:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A5DBD6F.5060006@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > The MULTI description makes no mention of suit lengths, 5, 6, 7 in the > long suit, nor does it make any mention of suit lengths in side suits. > > It is 'normal' for many to exclude as a matter of partnership > agreement the presence of a side four-card major in a weak two. The > MULTI exactly as written makes no mention of this exclusion therefore > by your argument this would be an illegal agreement. > > Alternatively if this exclusion is allowed even though it is not > explicitly written in the MULTI exactly as described I can see no > reason why an alternative exclusion such as 'not balanced' would be > disallowed. > > The description of MULTI only stipulates that we must have a weak two > in a major. Where therein does it restrict the type of weak two in a > major? It is not there. > > Therefore I do not believe it is proper after the issue of the > regulations to impose additional restrictions. > AG : notice this isn't the only case where the way to formulate requirements for a bid (or play) seems to change its allowability. --- 1D 'catchall', as part of a strong club system, doesn't add to the system's official complexity - still blue - or red if other complex openings. Say you play the following (which does exist in Belgium) : 1C - 16+ 1D - any 12-15 without any other available opening 1H/S - 5+ cards 11-15 1NT - natural 12-15 2C - 3 suits, includes both minors 12-15 2D (or 2H if playing Multi) - 3 suits, includes both majors 12-15 Red, OK ? But suppose you play this : 1C - 16+ 1D - 5+ cards in either C or D, unbalanced 12-15 1H & up : as above Then 1D is 'yellow', isn't it ? But both 1D openings are identical ! Just check ... Which means the rules are inconsistent. --- Another example : do you know this signalling ocnvention ? It does exist. "When leading a trump, mark the count about the total number of black cards : low = odd" Could you disallow it ? But when the exact number of cards in any one suit is known from the play, this becomes an encrypted signal about the other suit of the same color. Can a signal be allowed or not according to what happened in the play ? Can you, declarer, suddenly call the TD after the concealed hand ruffed some suit, to claim they are now playing encrypted signals ? --- Now Grattan tells us that he has to apply the rules as edicted, even if inconsistent. I beg to differ. If rules aare inconsistent, he can't apply them, by definition, and he should state this aloud. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 15 13:45:26 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:45:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5DBD6F.5060006@ulb.ac.be> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5DBD6F.5060006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A5DC156.4080104@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > AG : notice this isn't the only case where the way to formulate > requirements for a bid (or play) seems to change its allowability. > > --- > > 1D 'catchall', as part of a strong club system, doesn't add to the > system's official complexity - still blue - or red if other complex > openings. > > Say you play the following (which does exist in Belgium) : > 1C - 16+ > 1D - any 12-15 without any other available opening > 1H/S - 5+ cards 11-15 > 1NT - natural 12-15 > 2C - 3 suits, includes both minors 12-15 > 2D (or 2H if playing Multi) - 3 suits, includes both majors 12-15 > > Red, OK ? > > But suppose you play this : > 1C - 16+ > 1D - 5+ cards in either C or D, unbalanced 12-15 > 1H & up : as above > > Then 1D is 'yellow', isn't it ? > > But both 1D openings are identical ! Just check ... > Which means the rules are inconsistent. > No they are not. When explaining the system in the second manner, it is forbidden (let's say). Now when explaining the system in the first manner, it does not seem forbidden, unless one checks a little further. Then one notices that the first manner is just the second one in disguise. So I would rule that the first manner would also describe a forbidden system. And, depending on the level at which this occurs, add on penalties for deliberate hiding of system (because they KNOW there is always a five-card minor suit) AND for deliberate playing of a forbidden system. And so no, the rules themselves are not inconsistent. Only the application of it is, if the first manner of describing it would mean the system were not forbidden. > --- > > Another example : do you know this signalling ocnvention ? It does exist. > "When leading a trump, mark the count about the total number of black > cards : low = odd" > Could you disallow it ? > Of course you can - a prime example of cryptic signals. Surely cryptic signals are forbidden not just when the key is known, but also when the key will become known after the signal. > But when the exact number of cards in any one suit is known from the > play, this becomes an encrypted signal about the other suit of the same > color. > Can a signal be allowed or not according to what happened in the play ? > Can you, declarer, suddenly call the TD after the concealed hand ruffed > some suit, to claim they are now playing encrypted signals ? > No, they are playing them from the start. > --- > > Now Grattan tells us that he has to apply the rules as edicted, even if > inconsistent. > I beg to differ. If rules aare inconsistent, he can't apply them, by > definition, and he should state this aloud. > That is true. Alain gives less than perfect examples of inconsistent rules, but indeed, if rules are inconsistent it becomes impossible to rule. > Best regards > > Alain > Herman. From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jul 15 13:45:08 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:45:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <4A5C9E86.60703@t-online.de> <4A5CF96F.8070803@t-online.de> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <4A5C9E86.60703@t-online.de> <4A5CF96F.8070803@t-online.de> Message-ID: Thank you for a breath of fresh air, Mathias. Unfortunately the practice of looking for arcane and clearly not intended meanings in the Laws will go on. That will continue to take the place of BLML being a vehicle for TDs to find answers when they have doubts, and place the mantel of silly interpretations squarely on the shoulders of the nit-pickers. Have you noticed the dearth of examples of better wording by the self styled gurus? Rather than accept the intended meaning and then present words that can only be understood to convey that, they wallow in self righteous flights of fancy to come up with silly arguments. Reading the Laws of Duplicate Bridge as though one has no understanding of the principles and methods of the game to arrive at silly interpretations would be much like my making a commentary on Cricket. I've read a compendium of the Laws/Rules of that game, but don't have the faintest idea of what they "mean". By the way, your English is just fine. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Matthias Berghaus To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? Roger Pewick schrieb: > > > I suggest that the concentration be placed on the words and what they say to > intelligent as well as not so intelligent players. And if the words do not > mean what their crafters intended then they do not mean what their crafters > intended. So who is the judge of what the crafters intendend, or what their words mean? Shouldn`t we rely on the testimony of those crafters? We can't ask Shakespeare, but we can ask Grattan, Kojak, Ton and others ( in no particular order, just naming those who come easily to the mind of this BLML reader, because they post here). > > There is something to be said of they that twist their minds to translate > what is written into something that it is not because they are told that the > meaning is what it is not. And equally there is something to be said of those that insist on certain interpretations ( or translations, the border is thin) when it suits their argument, when another translation would well fit common usage, and would lead to a reading which has been used for quite some time. I do not resist temptation well, so I say that it is to the detriment of the game to read the text with a closed mind. It is well to point out certain passages that may be read in certain ways, and so may lead to misunderstandings and confusion, and suggest remedies, which you have done. I can find no fault in that, and I trust that nobody else can, either. But that you assert that a phrase as flexible as "as in" (where I think that the word "as" has to be read apart from "in 64A", making clear the intention, and leaving no room for doubt) is to be read in one specific way ( flying in the face of the practice of long years) is something absolutely beyond me. I am a firm supporter of all who ask for clearer language, and the passage in question could be improved (as you have shown by reading it - IMO - wrong), but much can be done by asking oneself: "how is this supposed to work, what is the intention behind this?", and I find that I can solve most mysteries that this text holds. In fact I often refer to the English text when I am in doubt, and I am not a native speaker of the English language, which can probably be noticed in every other sentence I write. Regards Matthias > I resist the temptation to do so. We are given > a Gordian Knot which I recognize as a Gordian Knot and I say so in the face > of many that insist otherwise. > > regards > roger pewick > _______________________________________________ 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/20090715/a81fd068/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 15 14:08:31 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:08:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5DC156.4080104@skynet.be> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5DBD6F.5060006@ulb.ac.be> <4A5DC156.4080104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A5DC6BF.3070508@ulb.ac.be> erman De Wael a ?crit : > No they are not. > When explaining the system in the second manner, it is forbidden (let's > say). > Now when explaining the system in the first manner, it does not seem > forbidden, unless one checks a little further. Then one notices that the > first manner is just the second one in disguise. > > So I would rule that the first manner would also describe a forbidden > system. AG : very interesting. However, the so-called 'Brabo system', which I described above, is played by some pairs in the Antwerp area, and allowed at all levels in Belgium. Those who play it are aware of the meaning of 1D, if only because the 2C response is defined as 'pass/correct'. What I called inconsistency is the following fact : According to Belgian regulations, 'residual' 1D openings in strong club openings -and reciprocally- are explicitly said NOT to rise the system's artificiality above rank C. And that contradicts your interpretation. One way out of the mess would be to state which rule takes precedence when conflict arises (like TFLB's statement that the demand to follow suit supersedes other obligations, e.g. those resulting from the existence of a PC). You seem to have done so here, by stating that 'yellowness' rules supersede other rules which seem to state the contrary, but on which grounds do you do so ? IMNSHO, if one item of law says the system isn't yellow, and another says it is, even the authority of well-known TDs can't help us. Now if you really want a more official example, take Roman Club, where the 1D opening shows an unbalanced hand, any 5-card suit, no side 4-card major. It isn't defined as such, but that's what it is. It should be yellow, but it isn't. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 15 14:25:25 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:25:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Questions In-Reply-To: References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> <50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <4A5C9E86.60703@t-online.de> <4A5CF96F.8070803@t-online.de> Message-ID: Hi Kojak. Suppose you were called to the table following declarer's lead from the wrong hand. What would you say, given the new laws? When MI is revealed in the clarification period, is it now well-known that the auction can be reopened to allow the last bid of the nonoffending side to be changed? Bob, who is happy to hear that someone on blml wants to answer questions On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:45:08 -0400, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Thank you for a breath of fresh air, Mathias. > > Unfortunately the practice of looking for arcane and clearly not > intended meanings in the Laws will go on. That will continue to take the > place of BLML being a vehicle for TDs to find answers when they have > doubts, and place the mantel of silly interpretations squarely on the > shoulders of the nit-pickers. Have you noticed the dearth of examples of > better wording by the self styled gurus? Rather than accept the intended > meaning and then present words that can only be understood to convey > that, they wallow in self righteous flights of fancy to come up with > silly arguments. > > Reading the Laws of Duplicate Bridge as though one has no understanding > of the principles and methods of the game to arrive at silly > interpretations would be much like my making a commentary on Cricket. > I've read a compendium of the Laws/Rules of that game, but don't have > the faintest idea of what they "mean". > > By the way, your English is just fine. > > Kojak > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Matthias Berghaus > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:32 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > > Roger Pewick schrieb: > > > > > > I suggest that the concentration be placed on the words and what > they say to > > intelligent as well as not so intelligent players. And if the words > do not > > mean what their crafters intended then they do not mean what their > crafters > > intended. > > So who is the judge of what the crafters intendend, or what their words > mean? Shouldn`t we rely on the testimony of those crafters? We can't > ask > Shakespeare, but we can ask Grattan, Kojak, Ton and others ( in no > particular order, just naming those who come easily to the mind of this > BLML reader, because they post here). > > > > > There is something to be said of they that twist their minds to > translate > > what is written into something that it is not because they are told > that the > > meaning is what it is not. > > And equally there is something to be said of those that insist on > certain interpretations ( or translations, the border is thin) when it > suits their argument, when another translation would well fit common > usage, and would lead to a reading which has been used for quite some > time. I do not resist temptation well, so I say that it is to the > detriment of the game to read the text with a closed mind. It is well > to > point out certain passages that may be read in certain ways, and so may > lead to misunderstandings and confusion, and suggest remedies, which > you > have done. I can find no fault in that, and I trust that nobody else > can, either. But that you assert that a phrase as flexible as "as in" > (where I think that the word "as" has to be read apart from "in 64A", > making clear the intention, and leaving no room for doubt) is to be > read > in one specific way ( flying in the face of the practice of long years) > is something absolutely beyond me. > > I am a firm supporter of all who ask for clearer language, and the > passage in question could be improved (as you have shown by reading it > - > IMO - wrong), but much can be done by asking oneself: "how is this > supposed to work, what is the intention behind this?", and I find that > I > can solve most mysteries that this text holds. In fact I often refer to > the English text when I am in doubt, and I am not a native speaker of > the English language, which can probably be noticed in every other > sentence I write. > > Regards > Matthias > > > I resist the temptation to do so. We are given > > a Gordian Knot which I recognize as a Gordian Knot and I say so in > the face > > of many that insist otherwise. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 15 14:34:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:34:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5DC6BF.3070508@ulb.ac.be> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5DBD6F.5060006@ulb.ac.be> <4A5DC156.4080104@skynet.be> <4A5DC6BF.3070508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A5DCCC2.8080101@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > erman De Wael a ?crit : >> No they are not. >> When explaining the system in the second manner, it is forbidden (let's >> say). >> Now when explaining the system in the first manner, it does not seem >> forbidden, unless one checks a little further. Then one notices that the >> first manner is just the second one in disguise. >> >> So I would rule that the first manner would also describe a forbidden >> system. > AG : very interesting. However, the so-called 'Brabo system', which I > described above, is played by some pairs in the Antwerp area, and > allowed at all levels in Belgium. > Those who play it are aware of the meaning of 1D, if only because the 2C > response is defined as 'pass/correct'. > It's been a very long time since I encountered people playing the real Brabo system. I would certainly rule as I suggested if I ever met anyone playing this. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 15 14:52:39 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:52:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5DCCC2.8080101@skynet.be> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5DBD6F.5060006@ulb.ac.be> <4A5DC156.4080104@skynet.be> <4A5DC6BF.3070508@ulb.ac.be> <4A5DCCC2.8080101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A5DD117.30404@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> erman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> No they are not. >>> When explaining the system in the second manner, it is forbidden (let's >>> say). >>> Now when explaining the system in the first manner, it does not seem >>> forbidden, unless one checks a little further. Then one notices that the >>> first manner is just the second one in disguise. >>> >>> So I would rule that the first manner would also describe a forbidden >>> system. >>> >> AG : very interesting. However, the so-called 'Brabo system', which I >> described above, is played by some pairs in the Antwerp area, and >> allowed at all levels in Belgium. >> Those who play it are aware of the meaning of 1D, if only because the 2C >> response is defined as 'pass/correct'. >> >> > > It's been a very long time since I encountered people playing the real > Brabo system. I would certainly rule as I suggested if I ever met anyone > playing this. > AG : and then they'll tell you they read in the Belgian regulations that 'blue systems are strong clubs and strong diamonds, including the use of the other minor to show any hand not pertaining to any other opening, provided the rest of the method is natural', and that 'red systems are green or blue systems + non-elementary conventions that aren't BSC'. Then they'll tell you that it's exactly what they're playing and their system is 'red'. Their claim would be valid unless you could explain them why 'yellow' rules are more important than the sentence above, and you've failed to do so until now. You only said that you would consider it more important. Even more so, if the system allowed for 1H/S openings on a 4-card suit when 4441, and their 2C/2D openings were natural (what about weak 2's in all suits ?), then it would be 'blue'. In fact, we're here in the strange situation, not unlike the Multi case, where A or B is prohibited, while A or B or C (e.g. Precision 1D) is allowed. Apart from it being illogical, it's impossible to enforce. If a pair played Precision 1D (5D, or 5C without 4M, or balanced 11-12) but decided to play rather sound openings, so that they'd never open balanced 12-counts unless they're worth 13, and then they'd open 1NT, you'd simply not be able to detect their 'inferential yellowness'. IMOBO, any law that's impossible to enforce should be changed, if only for the sake of our (TD's) credibility. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 15 16:09:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:09:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5D980A.6070305@skynet.be><005c01ca052c$48fed2c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5DB685.6000203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007401ca0555$d343dec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations >> > > There is no need for logicality, per se. > But if you then apply logic to ban a certain kind of extension, and you > do not apply the same logic and allow another extension, then you are > not making sense. > It would be OK, IMO, to state that the RA has banned the use of the > (4-card minor promised-Multi), but it is not OK to state that this > logically follows from the regulation as written. > +=+ However, no logic is involved. The WBF has simply issued guidance as to the interpretation of the Systems Policy. Of course, in parallel I am in discussion with colleagues and urging fresh clarification of the subject in Sao Paulo, even suggesting how it may be done. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 15 16:12:21 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:12:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 14, 2009, at 8:44 AM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > I fail to see how anyone can interpret the words of "C" "..... > AFTER ANY ESTABLISHED REVOKE....." as meaning other than ANY > regardless if it is singular or plural. It includes those which > were only found out after the penalty period for a revoke expired. > The reference to "C" in "B" simply reminds those who might get hung > up on B2. Easy. Someone might just read the rest of it, note that it applies only when "the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated", and conclude that it *does not* apply to an established revoke committed against an "offending side". Which might make it less than clear that it can be applied in conjunction with L64B7, for example. I don't personally argue for that interpretation, but I certainly don't "fail to see how anyone can". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Wed Jul 15 16:26:52 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:26:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Grattan wrote: > (Wayne Burrows) > I do not believe that what you say conforms to the regulations. > > The MULTI description makes no mention of suit lengths, 5, 6, 7 in the > long suit, nor does it make any mention of suit lengths in side suits. > > It is 'normal' for many to exclude as a matter of partnership > agreement the presence of a side four-card major in a weak two. The > MULTI exactly as written makes no mention of this exclusion therefore > by your argument this would be an illegal agreement. > > Alternatively if this exclusion is allowed even though it is not > explicitly written in the MULTI exactly as described I can see no > reason why an alternative exclusion such as 'not balanced' would be > disallowed. > > The description of MULTI only stipulates that we must have a weak two > in a major. Where therein does it restrict the type of weak two in a > major? It is not there. > > Therefore I do not believe it is proper after the issue of the > regulations to impose additional restrictions. > -- > ............................................................................ > ............. > +=+ Let us be clear that the interpretation of the regulation > has not changed since the exception was instituted in the > System Policy. There is nothing new in this. > If you ask me my personal opinion, despite the more > liberal bridge culture from which I spring I have no problem > if that is the position the WBF desires. I think the way in > which it is currently achieved is clumsy because, for the > exception to apply, the Systems Policy requires players to > conform with the given description of the Multi exactly, > taking account of and avoiding the addition of what is > absent from that description. Therefore I would choose > to restate the regulation. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > N.B. You say, Wayne, that "the MULTI description makes > no mention of suit lengths, 5, 6, 7 in the long suit, nor does > it make any mention of suit lengths in side suits." If you look > more carefully you will see that it tells partnerships they may > specify "fair six card suit", or "bad six card suit or often fair > five card suit acceptable", or "anything is acceptable". This > all has to do with the kind of major suit to be expected in the > weak hand; anything to do with the remaining distribution of > cards in the hand is absent and for the exception to apply > must remain so. You may quibble if you wish, but that is > how it is. Are you saying that, if I am plazing the multi in an event where the WBF system policy is in place, and my partnership agrees not to open KJT9xx,KJT9xx,x,void with a multi, then this multi is brown sticker (because it contains the aditional restriction not listed in the exception that no side six card major suit is allowed)? If yes, then I claim that the net effect of this regulation is that the multi is brown sticker throughout. Thomas Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 15 16:53:05 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:53:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com> <50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <4A5C9E86.60703@t-online.de> <4A5CF96F.8070803@t-online.de> Message-ID: Hi Kojak. You were deep. I wish you would stick around. You would be a great resource for current practice and a great resource for the intention of the authors. I think everyone would be interested in your interpretation of the laws. So blml would be a better place. I think you would learn more about the laws and their underlying structure and how people interpret the laws. A person can try to believe that anyone with good purpose and reasonable intelligence and common sense will interpret the laws exactly the same way. That viewpoint is dysfunctional. When people believe that, then whenever someone disagrees with them, they have to argue that the other person is unintelligent, lacks common sense, is being deliberately obstructive or arcane, is blind, etc. etc. I am leaving out shades of gray, but it is natural to think this way it seems to me that many people think this way. The reality is that the laws are, in places, inconsistent, ambiguous, and don't always fit current practice or the author's intentions. IMO, some of the most arcane interpretation are made to cover up these problems with the laws (e.g., that an insufficient bid is not a bid). blml is, among other things, a place to discover the different understandings people have and a place to test different interpretations in the cauldron of opposing scrutiny. You ask for a place where people can go and get straightforward answers to their questions. AFAIK, blml will do that, but only when there is a straightforward answer that everyone agrees on, and it has other (perhaps inconsistent) roles. You seem to be talking about something exactly like IBLF. Is that what you wanted? It already exists. They specialize in given straigtforward answers to questions. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 15 17:14:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:14:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00d701ca055e$fb840b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > On Jul 14, 2009, at 8:44 AM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > >> I fail to see how anyone can interpret the words of "C" "..... >> AFTER ANY ESTABLISHED REVOKE....." as meaning other than ANY >> regardless if it is singular or plural. It includes those which >> were only found out after the penalty period for a revoke expired. >> The reference to "C" in "B" simply reminds those who might get hung >> up on B2. > > Easy. Someone might just read the rest of it, note that it applies > only when "the Director deems that the non-offending side is > insufficiently compensated", and conclude that it *does not* apply to > an established revoke committed against an "offending side". Which > might make it less than clear that it can be applied in conjunction > with L64B7, for example. > > I don't personally argue for that interpretation, but I certainly > don't "fail to see how anyone can". > +=+ I remember a discussion sometime or other leading to a consensus, if I recall correctly, that since the two revokes are separate occurrences, when N revokes EW are non-offending and when, on the same board, E later revokes NS are non-offending. This discussion could perhaps have occurred when Ton showed his Commentary to the WBFLC, but since he did not seek for it the sponsorship of the committee his Commentary remained as a documentation of his personal opinions (I do not have it to hand) and an official record of the discussion may be lacking. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 15 17:57:52 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:57:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <00d701ca055e$fb840b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090715155757.33156990C09E@relay2.webreus.nl> Kojak: >> I fail to see how anyone can interpret the words of "C" "..... >> AFTER ANY ESTABLISHED REVOKE....." as meaning other than ANY >> regardless if it is singular or plural. It includes those which >> were only found out after the penalty period for a revoke expired. >> The reference to "C" in "B" simply reminds those who might get hung >> up on B2. Eric: > Easy. Someone might just read the rest of it, note that it applies > only when "the Director deems that the non-offending side is > insufficiently compensated", and conclude that it *does not* apply to > an established revoke committed against an "offending side". Which > might make it less than clear that it can be applied in conjunction > with L64B7, for example. > > I don't personally argue for that interpretation, but I certainly > don't "fail to see how anyone can". > +=+ I remember a discussion sometime or other leading to a consensus, if I recall correctly, that since the two revokes are separate occurrences, when N revokes EW are non-offending and when, on the same board, E later revokes NS are non-offending. This discussion could perhaps have occurred when Ton showed his Commentary to the WBFLC, but since he did not seek for it the sponsorship of the committee his Commentary remained as a documentation of his personal opinions (I do not have it to hand) and an official record of the discussion may be lacking. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sme of us have the quality to know in an instance the only reasonable if not clear cut meaning of our work during 6-7 years. I admire them and also for that reason am not amongst those. So I consider it reasonable to have some further thoughts about the application of L 64 B7 when we are in Sao Paulo. And I am as happy as my grandchildren staying with us at this moment to know that one of the experts will be in our meetings to explain to me what we meant to say. ton From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 15 19:17:01 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:17:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <4A5C9E86.60703@t-online.de><4A5CF96F.8070803@t-online.de> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <4A5C9E86.60703@t-online.de><4A5CF96F.8070803@t-online.de> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 06:45 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > Thank you for a breath of fresh air, Mathias. > > Unfortunately the practice of looking for arcane and clearly not intended > meanings in the Laws will go on. That will continue to take the place of > BLML being a vehicle for TDs to find answers when they have doubts, and > place the mantel of silly interpretations squarely on the shoulders of the > nit-pickers. Have you noticed the dearth of examples of better wording by > the self styled gurus? There comes a time to stand up and this is it. As a prelude, some years ago a very ungentleman named Marty Arndt was drunk at the bridge table and was interminably rude and was very loud for a prolonged time doing it [translation, all night]. And when I came within five tables of him I yelled for him to be quiet and the room erupted in applause. It was the director that insisted he continue his ways [and I suspect you can surmise why]. I didn't go looking for problems. I had problems and went looking for why the problems were there. Now, you asked how someone could read the law and arrive at different conclusions than you assert. I demonstrated how. And in return you provide denigration. I have since explored further the usage within the context of the moment of "as in" and found that the dominant usage is as I purported. Talk about fresh air. The laws treat contestants as children and wonder of wonders so do you. And when that happens guess what you get in return. Children, not bridge players. And that, is the definition of broken. > Rather than accept the intended meaning and then present words that can > only be understood to convey that, they wallow in self righteous flights > of fancy to come up with silly arguments. The lawmakers have shown particular distaste where the subject is what should constitute law and how it ought to be expressed. This might explain the dearth of whatever. regards roger pewick > Reading the Laws of Duplicate Bridge as though one has no understanding > of the principles and methods of the game to arrive at silly > interpretations would be much like my making a commentary on Cricket. > I've read a compendium of the Laws/Rules of that game, but don't have the > faintest idea of what they "mean". > > By the way, your English is just fine. > > Kojak > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Matthias Berghaus > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:32 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > > Roger Pewick schrieb: > > > > > > I suggest that the concentration be placed on the words and what they > say to > > intelligent as well as not so intelligent players. And if the words do > not > > mean what their crafters intended then they do not mean what their > crafters > > intended. > > So who is the judge of what the crafters intendend, or what their words > mean? Shouldn`t we rely on the testimony of those crafters? We can't ask > Shakespeare, but we can ask Grattan, Kojak, Ton and others ( in no > particular order, just naming those who come easily to the mind of this > BLML reader, because they post here). > > > > > There is something to be said of they that twist their minds to > translate > > what is written into something that it is not because they are told > that the > > meaning is what it is not. > > And equally there is something to be said of those that insist on > certain interpretations ( or translations, the border is thin) when it > suits their argument, when another translation would well fit common > usage, and would lead to a reading which has been used for quite some > time. I do not resist temptation well, so I say that it is to the > detriment of the game to read the text with a closed mind. It is well to > point out certain passages that may be read in certain ways, and so may > lead to misunderstandings and confusion, and suggest remedies, which you > have done. I can find no fault in that, and I trust that nobody else > can, either. > But that you assert that a phrase as flexible as "as in" But that is what I am saying- the words have some flexibility, and yet they were used. To what purpose????? If the intention was as some purport then different language ought to have been used, and in the context that such different language was not used then 'for example' has some basis for being clearly indicated. > (where I think that the word "as" has to be read apart from "in 64A", > making clear the intention, and leaving no room for doubt) is to be read > in one specific way ( flying in the face of the practice of long years) > is something absolutely beyond me. As I said earlier I found that the common usage is 'for example'. > I am a firm supporter of all who ask for clearer language, and the > passage in question could be improved (as you have shown by reading it - > IMO - wrong), but much can be done by asking oneself: "how is this > supposed to work, what is the intention behind this?", and I find that I > can solve most mysteries that this text holds. In fact I often refer to > the English text when I am in doubt, and I am not a native speaker of > the English language, which can probably be noticed in every other > sentence I write. > > Regards > Matthias > > > I resist the temptation to do so. We are given > > a Gordian Knot which I recognize as a Gordian Knot and I say so in the > face > > of many that insist otherwise. > > > > regards > > roger pewick From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 22:02:19 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:02:19 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907151302i385ef1fr89f256a3105b0781@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/15 Grattan : > > Grattan Endicott (also ? ? ? ? ? ? ?perhaps permanently suspended) > Wednesday, 15th July 2009. 10.30 a.m. GMT > ********************************** > I hear that Intel makes 'net' profits. > ********************************** > (Wayne Burrows) > I do not believe that what you say conforms to the regulations. > > The MULTI description makes no mention of suit lengths, 5, 6, 7 in the > long suit, nor does it make any mention of suit lengths in side suits. > > It is 'normal' for many to exclude as a matter of partnership > agreement the presence of a side four-card major in a weak two. ?The > MULTI exactly as written makes no mention of this exclusion therefore > by your argument this would be an illegal agreement. > > Alternatively if this exclusion is allowed even though it is not > explicitly written in the MULTI exactly as described I can see no > reason why an alternative exclusion such as 'not balanced' would be > disallowed. > > The description of MULTI only stipulates that we must have a weak two > in a major. ?Where therein does it restrict the type of weak two in a > major? ?It is not there. > > Therefore I do not believe it is proper after the issue of the > regulations to impose additional restrictions. > -- > ......................................................................................... > +=+ Let us be clear that the interpretation of the regulation > has not changed since the exception was instituted in the > System Policy. There is nothing new in this. > ? ? ? If you ask me my personal opinion, despite the more > liberal bridge culture from which I spring I have no problem > if that is the position the WBF desires. I think the way in > which it is currently achieved is clumsy because, for the > exception to apply, the Systems Policy requires players to > conform with the given description of the Multi exactly, > taking account of and avoiding the addition of what is > absent from that description. Therefore I would ?choose > to restate the regulation. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > N.B. You say, Wayne, that "the MULTI description makes > no mention of suit lengths, 5, 6, 7 in the long suit, nor does > it make any mention of suit lengths in side suits." If you look > more carefully you will see that it tells partnerships they may > specify "fair six card suit", or "bad six card suit or often fair > five card suit acceptable", or "anything is acceptable". This > all has to do with the kind of major suit to be expected in the > weak hand; anything to do with the remaining distribution of > cards in the hand is absent and for the exception to apply > must remain so. You may quibble if you wish, but that is > how it is. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > "You may use a more descriptive adjective." I don't see why I cannot use the adjective "five-card". "(Inside the card), you must include a full description of range and style for the weak type." And the description "not balanced, no side four-card major". -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 22:08:28 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:08:28 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5DC156.4080104@skynet.be> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5DBD6F.5060006@ulb.ac.be> <4A5DC156.4080104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907151308l1c5c17e5p2cf9d84276a6f50d@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/15 Herman De Wael : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> Now Grattan tells us that he has to apply the rules as edicted, even if >> inconsistent. >> I beg to differ. If rules aare inconsistent, he can't apply them, by >> definition, and he should state this aloud. >> > > That is true. Alain gives less than perfect examples of inconsistent > rules, but indeed, if rules are inconsistent it becomes impossible to rule. > And in my opinion more importantly from a player's perspective impossible to prepare for an event. This same thing happened in Shanghai where the WBF for reasons best known to itself decided after the fact that a 2+ 1C was 'Natural' so that those who had prepared Brown Sticker Defenses to the opponents conventional 1C opening were not allowed to play them. Now we find that those who in good faith have prepared their systems which are not restricted by anything written in the regulations are going to be forced to play some other system since the date has passed for submitting systems and they have not provided the documentation for what is now improperly being called a Brown Sticker Convention. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 22:13:26 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:13:26 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <007401ca0555$d343dec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5D980A.6070305@skynet.be> <005c01ca052c$48fed2c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5DB685.6000203@skynet.be> <007401ca0555$d343dec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907151313l65223f38xd2b8eb5ec3a377e@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/16 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott (also ? ? ? ? ? ? ?perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > I hear that Intel makes 'net' profits. > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:59 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > > >>> >> >> There is no need for logicality, per se. >> But if you then apply logic to ban a certain kind of extension, and you >> do not apply the same logic and allow another extension, then you are >> not making sense. >> It would be OK, IMO, to state that the RA has banned the use of the >> (4-card minor promised-Multi), but it is not OK to state that this >> logically follows from the regulation as written. >> > +=+ However, no logic is involved. The WBF has simply > issued guidance as to the interpretation of the Systems Policy. > ? ? ? Of course, in parallel I am in discussion with colleagues > and urging fresh clarification of the subject in Sao Paulo, even > suggesting how it may be done. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ G ~ ? +=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Effectively the laws of bridge bind the WBF or rather their agents the directors at the event by the announced regulations. Those announced regulations do not prohibit a MULTI that is "five-card" and "not balanced" etc. Therefore the only way to prevent players from playing these systems is to act contrary to the laws of the game. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 22:15:06 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:15:06 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/16 Thomas Dehn : > Grattan wrote: >> (Wayne Burrows) >> I do not believe that what you say conforms to the regulations. >> >> The MULTI description makes no mention of suit lengths, 5, 6, 7 in the >> long suit, nor does it make any mention of suit lengths in side suits. >> >> It is 'normal' for many to exclude as a matter of partnership >> agreement the presence of a side four-card major in a weak two. ?The >> MULTI exactly as written makes no mention of this exclusion therefore >> by your argument this would be an illegal agreement. >> >> Alternatively if this exclusion is allowed even though it is not >> explicitly written in the MULTI exactly as described I can see no >> reason why an alternative exclusion such as 'not balanced' would be >> disallowed. >> >> The description of MULTI only stipulates that we must have a weak two >> in a major. ?Where therein does it restrict the type of weak two in a >> major? ?It is not there. >> >> Therefore I do not believe it is proper after the issue of the >> regulations to impose additional restrictions. >> -- >> ............................................................................ >> ............. >> +=+ Let us be clear that the interpretation of the regulation >> has not changed since the exception was instituted in the >> System Policy. There is nothing new in this. >> ? ? ? ?If you ask me my personal opinion, despite the more >> liberal bridge culture from which I spring I have no problem >> if that is the position the WBF desires. I think the way in >> which it is currently achieved is clumsy because, for the >> exception to apply, the Systems Policy requires players to >> conform with the given description of the Multi exactly, >> taking account of and avoiding the addition of what is >> absent from that description. Therefore I would ?choose >> to restate the regulation. >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ >> N.B. You say, Wayne, that "the MULTI description makes >> no mention of suit lengths, 5, 6, 7 in the long suit, nor does >> it make any mention of suit lengths in side suits." If you look >> more carefully you will see that it tells partnerships they may >> specify "fair six card suit", or "bad six card suit or often fair >> five card suit acceptable", or "anything is acceptable". This >> all has to do with the kind of major suit to be expected in the >> weak hand; anything to do with the remaining distribution of >> cards in the hand is absent and for the exception to apply >> must remain so. You may quibble if you wish, but that is >> how it is. > > Are you saying that, if I am plazing the multi in an event where the WBF system > policy is in place, and my partnership agrees not to open KJT9xx,KJT9xx,x,void > with a multi, then this multi is brown sticker (because it contains the > aditional restriction not listed in the exception that no side six card major suit is allowed)? > > If yes, then I claim that the net effect of this regulation is that the multi is > brown sticker throughout. > > > Thomas > > Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 ?den zweiten Platz! > (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") > JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > That is exactly what he is saying. Although he has yet to admit that. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 15 22:32:17 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:32:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <00d701ca055e$fb840b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <00d701ca055e$fb840b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <31B420DA-0125-4DAD-9C5F-9C8F02B5AFA1@starpower.net> On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Jul 14, 2009, at 8:44 AM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: >> >>> I fail to see how anyone can interpret the words of "C" "..... >>> AFTER ANY ESTABLISHED REVOKE....." as meaning other than ANY >>> regardless if it is singular or plural. It includes those which >>> were only found out after the penalty period for a revoke expired. >>> The reference to "C" in "B" simply reminds those who might get hung >>> up on B2. >> >> Easy. Someone might just read the rest of it, note that it applies >> only when "the Director deems that the non-offending side is >> insufficiently compensated", and conclude that it *does not* apply to >> an established revoke committed against an "offending side". Which >> might make it less than clear that it can be applied in conjunction >> with L64B7, for example. >> >> I don't personally argue for that interpretation, but I certainly >> don't "fail to see how anyone can". > > +=+ I remember a discussion sometime or other leading > to a consensus, if I recall correctly, that since the two > revokes are separate occurrences, when N revokes EW > are non-offending and when, on the same board, E later > revokes NS are non-offending. This discussion could > perhaps have occurred when Ton showed his Commentary > to the WBFLC, but since he did not seek for it the > sponsorship of the committee his Commentary remained > as a documentation of his personal opinions (I do not > have it to hand) and an official record of the discussion > may be lacking. That's perfectly sensible. It is in fact both how I would read the law and how I believe it was intended to be read. We have, fortunately for us, several members of this forum who have been directly involved in the formulation of the laws, or who sit in the councils of those who do. Such folks understand the "legislative history" of the laws, what they were intended to accomplish, and how they were intended to be read. Grattan, Kojak and others know what the law *means*. Or, rather, they know what the *law* means. Unlike those whose mental set is conditioned by such knowledge, however, are the rest of us, who can know only what the *words* of the law mean. And who can, when the meaning of those words is ambiguguous, produce through discussion (perhaps argument) a variety of alternative possible meanings of those words. In an ideal world, the former would hope to improve the laws by making the meaning of the words in which they express them as unamibiguously reflective of the meaning of the laws, recognize that they are too familiar with the meaning of the laws to separate that knowledge from the actual written words, and take advantage of the ability of the rest of us to help them out in that regard. So when Kojak tells us that the meaning of the law is what it is, and no amount of verbal game-playing on BLML can change that in the least regard, and gives us the word "from on high" that this is the way it has always been done, was always intended to be done, and will keep on being done that way, he is entirely justified. But he abandons his area of expertise -- the meaning of law -- to take on a subject that that very expertise contributes to ignorance of by virtue of mental set -- the literal meanings of the words in the lawbook -- when he writes, "I fail to see how anyone can interpret the words of as meaning other than ". In my reply, I merely hoped to help him overcome that particular failure. I am gratified to learn from Grattan that there was some discussion by the WBFLC on this point, which means I am not alone in imagining that one might not "fail to see how anyone can interpret..." this law correctly. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 15 22:39:16 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:39:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com> References: <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> Wayne Burrows schrieb: > 2009/7/16 Thomas Dehn : >> Are you saying that, if I am plazing the multi in an event where the WBF system >> policy is in place, and my partnership agrees not to open KJT9xx,KJT9xx,x,void >> with a multi, then this multi is brown sticker (because it contains the >> aditional restriction not listed in the exception that no side six card major suit is allowed)? >> >> If yes, then I claim that the net effect of this regulation is that the multi is >> brown sticker throughout. >> >> >> Thomas >> > > That is exactly what he is saying. Although he has yet to admit that. > > It seems to me that this is not what he is saying. He says ( as spokesman for the WBF here, as he is alsways careful to keep his personal opinions to himself when on official business) that a 2D opening showing _exactly_ (!!!) 5 cards in a major _and_ guaranteeing a second suit is going to be considered BS. So if you play 2D as at least 5 cards, and unbalanced if only 5 cards (style and judgement) this seems to me not in contravention of said rule, as it does not promise exactly 5 cards. From the next sentence of the origina text it seems that players combine this with natural weak twos, e.g. 2H,S weak two, at least n cards, 2D "Multi", unknown 5card major with another suit of at least 4 cards. This "Multi" clearly is BS. On the other hand nobody playing something even vaguely resembling a "classic" Multi will be inconvenienced. So anyone can agree to open or not to open Thomas' example hand above without making the method BS. Best regards Matthias From blml at arcor.de Wed Jul 15 22:56:01 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:56:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Wayne Burrows schrieb: > > 2009/7/16 Thomas Dehn : > >> Are you saying that, if I am plazing the multi in an event where the WBF system > >> policy is in place, and my partnership agrees not to open > >> KJT9xx,KJT9xx,x,void > >> with a multi, then this multi is brown sticker (because it contains the > >> aditional restriction not listed in the exception that no side six card major suit is allowed)? > >> > >> If yes, then I claim that the net effect of this regulation is that the multi is > >> brown sticker throughout. > >> > >> > >> Thomas > >> > > > > That is exactly what he is saying. Although he has yet to admit that. > > > > > > It seems to me that this is not what he is saying. He says ( as > spokesman for the WBF here, as he is alsways careful to keep his > personal opinions to himself when on official business) that a 2D > opening showing _exactly_ (!!!) 5 cards in a major _and_ guaranteeing a > second suit is going to be considered BS. So if you play 2D as at least > 5 cards, and unbalanced if only 5 cards (style and judgement) this seems > to me not in contravention of said rule, as it does not promise exactly > 5 cards. From the next sentence of the origina text it seems that > players combine this with natural weak twos, e.g. 2H,S weak two, at > least n cards, 2D "Multi", unknown 5card major with another suit of at > least 4 cards. This "Multi" clearly is BS. On the other hand nobody > playing something even vaguely resembling a "classic" Multi will be > inconvenienced. Grattan wrote "If you look more carefully you will see that it tells partnerships they may specify "fair six card suit", or "bad six card suit or often fair five card suit acceptable", or "anything is acceptable". This all has to do with the kind of major suit to be expected in the weak hand; anything to do with the remaining distribution of cards in the hand is absent and for the exception to apply must remain so. You may quibble if you wish, but that is how it is." The main point under discussion here is "anything to do with the remaining distribution of cards in the hand is absent and for the exception to apply must remain so" According to that statement, for the brown stick exception to apply o the partnership cannot agree not to open the multi with a void o the partnership cannot agree not to open the multi with a side six card major and so many other similar common agreements that nothing will be left over. Of course there is the difference here between "agreeing that the multi shows certain distribution features" (Wyklosz clear is brown sticker) and "agreeing that the multi denies certain distribution features". But that boils down to wording "not 5332 distribution" rather than "shows a four card side suit", and wording should not make a difference whether a method is brown sticker or not. Thomas Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jul 15 23:54:44 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:54:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <00d701ca055e$fb840b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <00d701ca055e$fb840b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001ca0596$dd351fc0$979f5f40$@com> [GE] I remember a discussion sometime or other leading to a consensus, if I recall correctly, that since the two revokes are separate occurrences, when N revokes EW are non-offending and when, on the same board, E later revokes NS are non-offending. [DALB] Have not been following this too closely, but the intent of the above seems perfectly reasonable to me; the Director restores equity in the case of any revoke not subject to penalty, or for which the penalty does not in itself at least restore equity. "Non-offending side" in the context of 64C means "the side that didn't commit the revoke for which equity may need to be restored", not "a side that has committed no offence at all in the course of the play of the current deal". Otherwise, if my opponent punches me on the nose before play begins, I would be able to revoke against him with impunity (claiming of course, to avoid the application of L72B1, that I did not do so deliberately - the blood from my wounds had fallen on my spades, causing me to be convinced that they were in fact hearts). Not that I would mind if the words "non-offending side" in the current L64C were amended to read "side that did not commit the revoke". That way, after 2017 one could avoid metaphorical punches on the nose from Kojak, against whom most if not all of us would be punching above our (metaphorical) weight. David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 16 01:05:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:05:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <00d701ca055e$fb840b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0596$dd351fc0$979f5f40$@com> Message-ID: <001801ca05a0$cb077410$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > > Not that I would mind if the words "non-offending side" in > the current L64C were amended to read "side that did not > commit the revoke". > +=+ There is a nuance in Law 64C that perhaps should not be lost. It refers to *the* non-offending side. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jul 16 02:39:20 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:39:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <001801ca05a0$cb077410$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <00d701ca055e$fb840b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0596$dd351fc0$979f5f40$@com> <001801ca05a0$cb077410$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000501ca05ad$dbbc1ce0$933456a0$@com> [GE] There is a nuance in Law 64C that perhaps should not be lost. It refers to *the* non-offending side. [DALB] Yes, I know it does. But what people here are saying (and I agree with them) is that the laws of a game played worldwide should not in any way be reliant on "nuances" in one particular language (English) that might or might not be "lost". What might perhaps be set as a goal for the 2017 revision of the Laws is not to reduce the number of words. Instead, try to reduce the average number of syllables per word. David Burn London, England From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jul 16 08:27:39 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:27:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com> <5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> Thomas Dehn schrieb: > > Grattan wrote > "If you look more carefully you will see that it tells partnerships they may > specify "fair six card suit", or "bad six card suit or often fair > five card suit acceptable", or "anything is acceptable". This > all has to do with the kind of major suit to be expected in the > weak hand; anything to do with the remaining distribution of > cards in the hand is absent and for the exception to apply > must remain so. You may quibble if you wish, but that is > how it is." > > The main point under discussion here is > "anything to do with the remaining distribution of > cards in the hand is absent and for the exception to apply must remain so" I was under the impression that the point under discussion in this thread is the Sao Paulo regulation. The rest developed during that discussion. Let us talk about your comments, but let's keep the actual regulation in mind. > > According to that statement, for the brown stick exception to apply > o the partnership cannot agree not to open the multi > with a void > o the partnership cannot agree not to open the multi > with a side six card major > and so many other similar common agreements that nothing > will be left over. We have two different aspects, which Grattan named "method" and "style". If you agree to open the Multi only with length in a known or unknown side suit, _promising_ length in a second suit, the Multi becomes BS, because this is "method". If you agree to the things you named above you do not _promise_ anything, there may be a side suit, but it is not promised. "I do not open a Multi on 5332, anything else goes" is a matter of style, not of method. Method can be regulated, style can not (at the moment, and I pray hard that this remains so, as it would indeed kill the game). > > Of course there is the difference here between > "agreeing that the multi shows certain distribution features" > (Wyklosz clear is brown sticker) and > "agreeing that the multi denies certain distribution features". > But that boils down to wording > "not 5332 distribution" rather than "shows a four card side suit", > and wording should not make a difference whether > a method is brown sticker or not. Indeed wording should not matter. But "5+ cards, not 5332" does not promise a side suit, since you may (and often will) hold 6(+) cards, so you do not promise a side suit. Best regards Matthias > > > Thomas > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 16 11:14:14 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:14:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <00d701ca055e$fb840b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0596$dd351fc0$979f5f40$@com><001801ca05a0$cb077410$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000501ca05ad$dbbc1ce0$933456a0$@com> Message-ID: <001601ca05f5$cbc5ba60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? > [GE] > > There is a nuance in Law 64C that perhaps should not be > lost. It refers to *the* non-offending side. > > [DALB] > > Yes, I know it does. But what people here are saying (and > I agree with them) is that the laws of a game played worldwide > should not in any way be reliant on "nuances" in one particular > language (English) that might or might not be "lost". > > What might perhaps be set as a goal for the 2017 revision of > the Laws is not to reduce the number of words. Instead, try to > reduce the average number of syllables per word. > +=+ Yes, David, and I broadly agree, although I believe the prime concern in law and regulation should be accuracy of expression, use of the right word. In the years preceding 2007 I made strenuous attempts to obtain a radical rewrite of the laws. We had the resources in the committee that could accomplish it had they been so inclined. However, in many places I failed to overcome the strength of the parrot cry "if it ain't broke don't fix it", with which part of the requirement is to be able to follow Kaplan's prose. Those familiar with it found it easy to do so out of longstanding practice. As far as the Systems Policy goes I think I may now have persuaded my superiors that there should be a core review - I hope with fresh eyes - in Sao Paulo, despite some feelings that material copied to them is the product of bush lawyers. But this is not to anticipate a more liberal regulation of systems. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 16 11:59:43 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:59:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> Message-ID: <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > Indeed wording should not matter. But "5+ cards, not 5332" > does not promise a side suit, since you may (and often will) > hold 6(+) cards, so you do not promise a side suit. > +=+ The trigger for the discourse was a private reference to me from a colleague. This concerned a Multi 2D comprising exactly a five card suit and since never made on 5-3-3-2 a second 4+ suit. It was necessary to dig to uncover the fact that it was never opened on 5-3-3-2. The system opened classic weak two majors on six card suits. The method is Brown Sticker since the partners know of the limitation. My turbulence has induced issue of guidance to be sent to Captains of Sao Paulo teams. It will not be worded exactly as I suggested and I wait to see what it says. Anna Gudge is coping with fifty guests and a daughter's wedding this coming Sunday so the text it will not circulate until next week. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 16 14:53:41 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:53:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > I hear that Intel makes 'net' profits. > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:27 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > > > >> Indeed wording should not matter. But "5+ cards, not 5332" >> does not promise a side suit, since you may (and often will) >> hold 6(+) cards, so you do not promise a side suit. >> >> > +=+ The trigger for the discourse was a private reference to > me from a colleague. This concerned a Multi 2D comprising > exactly a five card suit and since never made on 5-3-3-2 a > second 4+ suit. It was necessary to dig to uncover the fact > that it was never opened on 5-3-3-2. The system opened > classic weak two majors on six card suits. The method is > Brown Sticker since the partners know of the limitation. AG : some commentaries are needed. 1. Many pairs who open Dutch 54's occasionally do it on 5332, with (3) in parenteses on their SC. This would destroy your argument. 2. They only have to exchange 2D for 2H/S to play an allowed system. I don't know whether this would be better or worse for them, but it does show that the rules are strange. Also, they would only have to say they open on 5332 only if their holding is precisely KJ109x or QJ109x to be allowed to play their system, This wouldn(t help opponents, and often they'd be able to deduce the 2-suited hand because partner would have either the J, 10 or 9. 3. Every pair that plays 5-card weak twos seldom do that on 5332 ; that's reasonable bridge. Now, how uncommon has it to be to make the system disallowed ? How many sand grains does it take to make a heap ? Remember, from point 1 : 'never' doesn't mean 'never'. Ah yes, 'it's illogical but I have to apply it'. The main source of industrial catastrophes. Best regards Alain Most people > > My turbulence has induced issue of guidance to be > sent to Captains of Sao Paulo teams. It will not be worded > exactly as I suggested and I wait to see what it says. Anna > Gudge is coping with fifty guests and a daughter's wedding > this coming Sunday so the text it will not circulate until next > week. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 16 15:22:45 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:22:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <94A22436-D26C-4B9C-8672-565F7950BD79@starpower.net> On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:59 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > >> Indeed wording should not matter. But "5+ cards, not 5332" >> does not promise a side suit, since you may (and often will) >> hold 6(+) cards, so you do not promise a side suit. > > +=+ The trigger for the discourse was a private reference to > me from a colleague. This concerned a Multi 2D comprising > exactly a five card suit and since never made on 5-3-3-2 a > second 4+ suit. It was necessary to dig to uncover the fact > that it was never opened on 5-3-3-2. The system opened > classic weak two majors on six card suits. The method is > Brown Sticker since the partners know of the limitation. > My turbulence has induced issue of guidance to be > sent to Captains of Sao Paulo teams. It will not be worded > exactly as I suggested and I wait to see what it says. Anna > Gudge is coping with fifty guests and a daughter's wedding > this coming Sunday so the text it will not circulate until next > week. The only reason we're having this discussion is that someone decided to confuse the issue by calling the method Grattan describes "Multi 2D". You cannot make a disallowed method into an allowed one by misapplying to it the name of a different method which happens to be legal. There are numerous variations of the "real" Multi, but all of them start from the basic principle of opening 2D when holding a "normal" weak two-bid in a major. If a pair opens their normal major- suit weak two's with two of the major, then, whatever their 2D opening is, it isn't Multi, and whatever exceptions the regulations may provide for Multi do not apply. ISTM that if Grattan had written, "This concerned a Gimcrack 2D comprising exactly a five card suit and...," there would be nothing to discuss. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jul 16 15:29:06 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:29:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Grattan a ?crit : >> +=+ The trigger for the discourse was a private reference to >> me from a colleague. This concerned a Multi 2D comprising >> exactly a five card suit and since never made on 5-3-3-2 a >> second 4+ suit. It was necessary to dig to uncover the fact >> that it was never opened on 5-3-3-2. The system opened >> classic weak two majors on six card suits. The method is >> Brown Sticker since the partners know of the limitation. > > AG : some commentaries are needed. Indeed :-) > > 1. Many pairs who open Dutch 54's occasionally do it on 5332, with (3) > in parenteses on their SC. > This would destroy your argument. Why? It is the exact opposite of the bid in question. While the system under discussion never opens on 5332, those Dutch guys seemingly do (I take your word for that, I never encountered it, but I do not play in the Netherlands more than once or twice a year). By the way: that method is BS in EBL events, see Systems Policy 2.4.c: Any 'weak' two-suited bids at the two or three level that may by agreement be made with three cards or fewer in one of the suits. > > 2. They only have to exchange 2D for 2H/S to play an allowed system. See above. It still is BS, if they sell it as a two-suiter. If they call it a weak two ( 5 cards, only rarely on 5332) it is still clear what they are doing, since it shows precisely 5 cards in the major. They are bound to have another bid to show 6+ card majors. Besides, that 2D gimmick makes it a kind of Wilkosz, only that it crops up more often, since you need only 4 cards in the second suit. If they open with a bid that defines the major they would be welcome to play it with 5332 against me, I won't complain, even though it technically is BS if "two-suited". > I > don't know whether this would be better or worse for them, but it does > show that the rules are strange. > Also, they would only have to say they open on 5332 only if their > holding is precisely KJ109x or QJ109x to be allowed to play their > system, How do you arrive at that conclusion? No mention of suit quality is made in the EBL regulations. I don`t know about the Netherlands, my Dutch is much too bad to interpret their regulations with any certainty. > This wouldn(t help opponents, and often they'd be able to deduce > the 2-suited hand because partner would have either the J, 10 or 9. > > 3. Every pair that plays 5-card weak twos seldom do that on 5332 ; > that's reasonable bridge. > Now, how uncommon has it to be to make the system disallowed ? How many > sand grains does it take to make a heap ? Remember, from point 1 : > 'never' doesn't mean 'never'. Oh, they can play 5-card weak twos for all I care, what they cannot do in Sao Paulo is open a "Multi" with _precisely_ 5 cards in the major and 5332 excluded. Best regards Matthias > > > Ah yes, 'it's illogical but I have to apply it'. The main source of > industrial catastrophes. > > Best regards > > Alain > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jul 16 15:33:58 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:33:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <94A22436-D26C-4B9C-8672-565F7950BD79@starpower.net> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <94A22436-D26C-4B9C-8672-565F7950BD79@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A5F2C46.2060801@t-online.de> Eric Landau schrieb: > ISTM that if Grattan had > written, "This concerned a Gimcrack 2D comprising exactly a five card > suit and...," there would be nothing to discuss. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > Eric, this from someone who has been on the list for years untold? This is BLML! :-) I agree with the rest of your post, though. Best regards Matthias From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 16 15:55:41 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:55:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <94A22436-D26C-4B9C-8672-565F7950BD79@starpower.net> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <94A22436-D26C-4B9C-8672-565F7950BD79@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A5F315D.7060209@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:59 AM, Grattan wrote: > > >> From: "Matthias Berghaus" >> >> >>> Indeed wording should not matter. But "5+ cards, not 5332" >>> does not promise a side suit, since you may (and often will) >>> hold 6(+) cards, so you do not promise a side suit. >>> >> +=+ The trigger for the discourse was a private reference to >> me from a colleague. This concerned a Multi 2D comprising >> exactly a five card suit and since never made on 5-3-3-2 a >> second 4+ suit. It was necessary to dig to uncover the fact >> that it was never opened on 5-3-3-2. The system opened >> classic weak two majors on six card suits. The method is >> Brown Sticker since the partners know of the limitation. >> My turbulence has induced issue of guidance to be >> sent to Captains of Sao Paulo teams. It will not be worded >> exactly as I suggested and I wait to see what it says. Anna >> Gudge is coping with fifty guests and a daughter's wedding >> this coming Sunday so the text it will not circulate until next >> week. >> > > The only reason we're having this discussion is that someone decided > to confuse the issue by calling the method Grattan describes "Multi > 2D". You cannot make a disallowed method into an allowed one by > misapplying to it the name of a different method which happens to be > legal. There are numerous variations of the "real" Multi, but all of > them start from the basic principle of opening 2D when holding a > "normal" weak two-bid in a major. If a pair opens their normal major- > suit weak two's with two of the major, then, whatever their 2D > opening is, it isn't Multi, and whatever exceptions the regulations > may provide for Multi do not apply. ISTM that if Grattan had > written, "This concerned a Gimcrack 2D comprising exactly a five card > suit and...," there would be nothing to discuss. > AG : perhaps in this case, but I think Wayne (and others) addresed a more general problem, of which this isn't a pure example, but here is a better one IMHO : Say a pair opens 2D with exactly a 6-card major, no second suit and not 3+ cards in the other major (sensible, isn't it ?). Then, by the mere fact that a hand comprises 13 cards, even RR's, there will be no singleton in any minor. Then, it would be disallowed because there are some positive requirements about some side suit. Doesn't it look strange ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 16 16:04:41 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:04:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A5F3379.6010506@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > >> 1. Many pairs who open Dutch 54's occasionally do it on 5332, with (3) >> in parenteses on their SC. >> This would destroy your argument. >> > > Why? It is the exact opposite of the bid in question. While the system > under discussion never opens on 5332, those Dutch guys seemingly do (I > take your word for that, I never encountered it, but I do not play in > the Netherlands more than once or twice a year). > By the way: that method is BS in EBL events, see Systems Policy 2.4.c: > Any 'weak' two-suited bids at the two or three level that may by > agreement be made with three cards or fewer in one of the suits. > > AG : and that's the problem. If they say '2H = 'exactly 5H, not 4S' it is allowed as a kind of weak 2-bid. If they say '2H = 5H+4m, but can occasionally be 5332', it is BSC. Whenever the same bid may be allowed or disallowed according to the way it is described, it's the rules, not the description, that's foul. > See above. It still is BS, if they sell it as a two-suiter. If they call > it a weak two ( 5 cards, only rarely on 5332) it is still clear what > they are doing, since it shows precisely 5 cards in the major. They are > bound to have another bid to show 6+ card majors. > AG : huh ? Bound ? Do you court-martial them if they don't ? I've got an overcall over 1D to show 5C+4M and R19-R23, and none to show 6+C in the same range. WTP ? (BTW, this bid could be 2D ...) >> I >> don't know whether this would be better or worse for them, but it does >> show that the rules are strange. >> Also, they would only have to say they open on 5332 only if their >> holding is precisely KJ109x or QJ109x to be allowed to play their >> system, >> > > How do you arrive at that conclusion? No mention of suit quality is made > in the EBL regulations. AG : indeed, but they are allowed to introduce some. If they play it that way, which is legal, the bid will still be 2-suited 98% of the time, and allowed. That's strange. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jul 16 16:32:21 2009 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:32:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40907130714x73532b0ct428f682d9648b12f@mail.gmail.com><50001.24.46.179.117.1247505084.squirrel@email.powweb.com><2b1e598b0907131735y7da41abfuc11bc98b08424877@mail.gmail.com> <00d701ca055e$fb840b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0596$dd351fc0$979f5f40$@com><001801ca05a0$cb077410$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000501ca05ad$dbbc1ce0$933456a0$@com> Message-ID: <41646E9D40AC4010AA20C54B2C51854A@stefanie> > [GE] > > There is a nuance in Law 64C that perhaps should not be lost. It refers to > *the* non-offending side. > > [DALB] > > Yes, I know it does. But what people here are saying (and I agree with > them) > is that the laws of a game played worldwide should not in any way be > reliant > on "nuances" in one particular language (English) that might or might not > be > "lost". This might happen, for instance, in languages that have no articles... __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4250 (20090716) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jul 16 17:20:28 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:20:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5F3379.6010506@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> <4A5F3379.6010506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A5F453C.2080406@t-online.de> Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >> >>> 1. Many pairs who open Dutch 54's occasionally do it on 5332, with (3) >>> in parenteses on their SC. >>> This would destroy your argument. >>> >> Why? It is the exact opposite of the bid in question. While the system >> under discussion never opens on 5332, those Dutch guys seemingly do (I >> take your word for that, I never encountered it, but I do not play in >> the Netherlands more than once or twice a year). >> By the way: that method is BS in EBL events, see Systems Policy 2.4.c: >> Any 'weak' two-suited bids at the two or three level that may by >> agreement be made with three cards or fewer in one of the suits. >> >> > AG : and that's the problem. > > If they say '2H = 'exactly 5H, not 4S' it is allowed as a kind of weak > 2-bid. > If they say '2H = 5H+4m, but can occasionally be 5332', it is BSC. > Whenever the same bid may be allowed or disallowed according to the way > it is described, it's the rules, not the description, that's foul. The proof usually is in the method. If they play "weak two" they will ask for features, or for suit quality, min/max, whatever. If they ask for a second suit... Come on, Alain, have you ever met a pair that asked for a second suit, even playing 5card W2? I haven't. Let's face it: if you open any old 5332, then it is much more important to find about range and suit quality, or actual length in the suit promised, not to mention which suit you actually hold if you start with 2D, than about a second suit which often is not there. Nobody in his right mind squanders bidding space for this. If you deliberately limit your major suit length to 5 you are either very brave (others might call it foolhardy), or you try to slip one past the TD. > > >> See above. It still is BS, if they sell it as a two-suiter. If they call >> it a weak two ( 5 cards, only rarely on 5332) it is still clear what >> they are doing, since it shows precisely 5 cards in the major. They are >> bound to have another bid to show 6+ card majors. >> > AG : huh ? Bound ? Do you court-martial them if they don't ? Nice idea, but no. Their results will do this for me. Probably I would not be able to beat the world champions if they were dumb enough to handicap themselves in such a way, but not being able to open 6card majors would hurt anyone. What happens here? Some people tried to sell two-Suiters as Multis, in fact playing 5-4(+) Wilkosz. If anyone described Wilkosz as "Multi, weak two (5-card) with another 5-card suit" you'd laugh him out of the room, no? Why should 5-4 be any less laughable? > I've got an overcall over 1D to show 5C+4M and R19-R23, and none to show > 6+C in the same range. WTP ? > > (BTW, this bid could be 2D ...) > >>> I >>> don't know whether this would be better or worse for them, but it does >>> show that the rules are strange. >>> Also, they would only have to say they open on 5332 only if their >>> holding is precisely KJ109x or QJ109x to be allowed to play their >>> system, >>> >> How do you arrive at that conclusion? No mention of suit quality is made >> in the EBL regulations. > AG : indeed, but they are allowed to introduce some. > If they play it that way, which is legal, the bid will still be 2-suited > 98% of the time, and allowed. That's strange. Even stranger is that I cannot find why any mention of suit quality would circumvene 2.4.c Systems Policy. Please enlighten me. What am I missing? Best regards Matthias > > > > Best regards > > > Alain From blml at arcor.de Thu Jul 16 17:49:00 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:49:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5F453C.2080406@t-online.de> References: <4A5F453C.2080406@t-online.de> <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> <4A5F3379.6010506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <24842350.1247759340205.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > > Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > >> > >>> 1. Many pairs who open Dutch 54's occasionally do it on 5332, with (3) > >>> in parenteses on their SC. > >>> This would destroy your argument. > >>> > >> Why? It is the exact opposite of the bid in question. While the system > >> under discussion never opens on 5332, those Dutch guys seemingly do (I > >> take your word for that, I never encountered it, but I do not play in > >> the Netherlands more than once or twice a year). > >> By the way: that method is BS in EBL events, see Systems Policy 2.4.c: > >> Any 'weak' two-suited bids at the two or three level that may by > >> agreement be made with three cards or fewer in one of the suits. > >> > >> > > AG : and that's the problem. > > > > If they say '2H = 'exactly 5H, not 4S' it is allowed as a kind of weak > > 2-bid. > > If they say '2H = 5H+4m, but can occasionally be 5332', it is BSC. > > Whenever the same bid may be allowed or disallowed according to the way > > it is described, it's the rules, not the description, that's foul. > > The proof usually is in the method. If they play "weak two" they will > ask for features, or for suit quality, min/max, whatever. If they ask > for a second suit... > Come on, Alain, have you ever met a pair that asked for a second suit, > even playing 5card W2? I haven't. Let's face it: if you open any old > 5332, then it is much more important to find about range and suit > quality, or actual length in the suit promised, not to mention which > suit you actually hold if you start with 2D, than about a second suit > which often is not there. Many pairs ask for a singleton. Having a singleton in one suit shows length in the other two suits, and one can proceed from there. Thomas Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jul 16 18:25:38 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:25:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <24842350.1247759340205.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <4A5F453C.2080406@t-online.de> <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> <4A5F3379.6010506@ulb.ac.be> <24842350.1247759340205.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A5F5482.1080209@t-online.de> Thomas Dehn schrieb: > Many pairs ask for a singleton. Having a singleton in one suit shows > length in the other two suits, and one can proceed from there. Proceed where? Ever met someone who could play in one of those suits under game level? After two-suiters this is common, one might even say that it is the whole idea, but after weak twos? Their methods after those alleged "weak two" or Multi or whatever will give them away. Best regards Matthias > > > Thomas > From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 22:18:50 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:18:50 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com> <5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907161318l92e5271m6f8bca9e38cde659@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/16 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott (also ? ? ? ? ? ? ?perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > I hear that Intel makes 'net' profits. > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:27 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > > >> Indeed wording should not matter. But "5+ cards, not 5332" >> does not promise a side suit, since you may (and often will) >> hold 6(+) cards, so you do not promise a side suit. >> > +=+ The trigger for the discourse was a private reference to > me from a colleague. This concerned a Multi 2D comprising > exactly a five card suit and since never made on 5-3-3-2 a > second 4+ suit. It was necessary to dig to uncover the fact > that it was never opened on 5-3-3-2. ?The system opened > classic weak two majors on six card suits. The method is > Brown Sticker since the partners know of the limitation. > ? ? ? ?My turbulence has induced issue of guidance to be > sent to Captains of Sao Paulo teams. It will not be worded > exactly as I suggested and I wait to see what it says. Anna > Gudge is coping with fifty guests and a daughter's wedding > this coming Sunday so the text it will not circulate until next > week. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ?+=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > I hope the same standard will be applied to those who open their MULTI with a six-card suit but have the additional constraints "no four card major" "no side void" etc etc. None of which are mentioned in the official definition of MULTI. Grattan your line here between "method" and "style and judgement" is very blurred. The System book does not require that the "weak two" option in a "MULTI" have six cards, it does not require that it cannot have further restrictions. It merely says "a weak-two in a major suit". In general removing hands from a method should not affect the legality of the method. If the method is legal with a wider set of hands why would it become illegal if we play a narrower set of hands. This logic appears to being applied to those who open a six-card weak two in their multi but not to those who open a five-card weak two in their multi. What gives? Who is complaining about this? -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From blml at arcor.de Thu Jul 16 22:32:19 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:32:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560907161318l92e5271m6f8bca9e38cde659@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560907161318l92e5271m6f8bca9e38cde659@mail.gmail.com> <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com> <5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <1531357.1247776339125.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Wayne Burrows wrote: > 2009/7/16 Grattan : > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > (also > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?perhaps permanently suspended) > > ********************************** > > I hear that Intel makes 'net' profits. > > ********************************** > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:27 AM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > > > > > >> Indeed wording should not matter. But "5+ cards, not 5332" > >> does not promise a side suit, since you may (and often will) > >> hold 6(+) cards, so you do not promise a side suit. > >> > > +=+ The trigger for the discourse was a private reference to > > me from a colleague. This concerned a Multi 2D comprising > > exactly a five card suit and since never made on 5-3-3-2 a > > second 4+ suit. It was necessary to dig to uncover the fact > > that it was never opened on 5-3-3-2. ?The system opened > > classic weak two majors on six card suits. The method is > > Brown Sticker since the partners know of the limitation. > > ? ? ? ?My turbulence has induced issue of guidance to be > > sent to Captains of Sao Paulo teams. It will not be worded > > exactly as I suggested and I wait to see what it says. Anna > > Gudge is coping with fifty guests and a daughter's wedding > > this coming Sunday so the text it will not circulate until next > > week. > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ?+=+ > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > I hope the same standard will be applied to those who open their MULTI > with a six-card suit but have the additional constraints "no four card > major" "no side void" etc etc. None of which are mentioned in the > official definition of MULTI. > > Grattan your line here between "method" and "style and judgement" is > very blurred. > > The System book does not require that the "weak two" option in a > "MULTI" have six cards, it does not require that it cannot have > further restrictions. It merely says "a weak-two in a major suit". > > In general removing hands from a method should not affect the legality > of the method. If the method is legal with a wider set of hands why > would it become illegal if we play a narrower set of hands. This logic > appears to being applied to those who open a six-card weak two in > their multi but not to those who open a five-card weak two in their > multi. What gives? Who is complaining about this? I disagree here: a Wyklosz 2D is much more difficult to defend than a "multi" 2D that just shows a 5 card major. Yet the Wyklosz 2D is a subset of that multi variation. Then, if you reduce further, to 2D= five diamonds plus a five card major, you get back to something that is easy to defend because of the known five card suit. Thomas Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 17 06:24:42 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:24:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 64B7 (each side "revokes") In-Reply-To: References: <1MQmWE-07onDs0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:16:56 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:14:22 -0400, Peter Eidt > wrote: > >> From: "Robert Frick" >>> I am pretty sure I know how to handle L64B7, when each side has >>> revoked. >> >> I'm pretty sure of the contrary. > > I agree. > >> >>> But that would seem to have worse problems than L64B2. >>> >>> Without knowing what the ruling should be, I would have assumed that >>> when both sides revoke, there is no non-offending side. If there is no >>> non-offending side, L64C wouldn't apply. >> >> ?? What makes you believe that two offences make no offenders ?? > > No non-offenders. I am not saying that is right, I am saying that seems > like a plausible thing to think. > >> >>> Again, we are back to the situation of whether L64C applies to the >>> revokes as a batch or should be applied to them one by one. One point >>> of L64B7 is to say that they are not treated one by one. That would >>> exacerbate the problem of seeing that they need to be treated >>> individually in L64B7. >>> >>> >>> I take back my confidence in the nonambiguity of this law. Declarer is >>> on track to make 9 tricks in no trump. Declarer revokes (established) >>> in a way that does not help him, so now the projected outcome is the >>> same 9 tricks minus 1 for rectification equals 8. Then the defense >>> revokes (established) in a way that gains them one trick. Declarer >>> hence takes 8 tricks. What is the final result? >> >> 9 tricks, see Law 64 C > > I have L64C in front of me. The problem isn't seeing it. > >> >>> I am assuming that if the first (established) revoke gains declarer a >>> trick, and the second (established) revoke doesn't help the defense, >>> then the table result of making 10 tricks is adjusted to making 9 >>> tricks. Right? >> >> Yesss !!! >> >>> And I am pretty sure the answer to the first question is that declarer >>> gets only 8 tricks, but I wouldn't have gotten that from the lawbook. >> >> That's the problem, but that's not a problem of the laws. > > There is no problem with the laws that you and I would publically state > opposite opinions? Are you saying that all directors would rule the same > on this issue? > > Here was my thinking. > > 1. If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of > the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the > first revoke. > > 2. The position after the first revoke is that the declarer is on the way > to get 8 tricks. > > 3. With no rectification for the second revoke (or first revoke), > declarer > ends up with 8 tricks. > > 4. Therefore, there is no adjustment for equity on either revoke. > > I am not saying that is right. It was the path I followed, and it still > seems reasonable to me, and I would not blame others for following that > path. The original question was whether L64B7+L64C is straightforward to > apply. Now I think this is right, the correct ruling is 8 tricks. (The problem: it is straightforward play to make 9 tricks; declarer makes a revoke that does not affect the play, then the defense revokes in a way that gains them a trick.) I cannot find any good way to avoid this ruling. Any other procedure bumps up against the proper way of resolving L64B2 revokes or is too complicated. It is awkward that the second revoke sometimes has less penalty than the first, but it does not seem like a serious problem. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 17 11:49:43 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:49:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A5F453C.2080406@t-online.de> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> <4A5F3379.6010506@ulb.ac.be> <4A5F453C.2080406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A604937.4050204@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >> >> AG : and that's the problem. >> >> If they say '2H = 'exactly 5H, not 4S' it is allowed as a kind of weak >> 2-bid. >> If they say '2H = 5H+4m, but can occasionally be 5332', it is BSC. >> Whenever the same bid may be allowed or disallowed according to the way >> it is described, it's the rules, not the description, that's foul. >> > > The proof usually is in the method. If they play "weak two" they will > ask for features, or for suit quality, min/max, whatever. If they ask > for a second suit... > AG : this doesn't change anything to the fact that one description makes it an explicitly allowed bid, and the other an explicitly disallowed bid. Maybe i'm wrong, but I see this as contradictory. > Come on, Alain, have you ever met a pair that asked for a second suit, > even playing 5card W2? I haven't. AG : I'll be happy to meet you next time you come in Brussels. 2H 2S relay 2NT = 3+ D (3C asks length and range) 3C = 4+ C (3D asks range) 3D = 6H & max 3H = 6H & min 3S = AKQxxx (and 2H-2NT shows 1RF with spades) This, as you can see, disallows us to open 2H on 3523. So what ? > Nobody in his right mind squanders bidding > space for this. Well, perhaps I'm insane, but that, at least, is not disallowed. > If you deliberately limit your major suit length to 5 > you are either very brave (others might call it foolhardy), or you try > to slip one past the TD. > > AG : or I play 2H and 2S as 5-card 9-12 and open 1H or 1S on either 4 or 6 cards. That's the case in one of my partnerships. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 17 12:05:55 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:05:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred><004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > ............. Are you saying that, if I am playing the multi in an event where the WBF system policy is in place, and my partnership agrees not to open KJT9xx,KJT9xx,x,void with a multi, then this multi is brown sticker (because it contains the additional restriction not listed in the exception that no side six card major suit is allowed)? > +=+ My superiors assure me that the requirement for the exception to apply is that the hand shall be single suited and this may be inferred from the standard description provided. An understanding that there may be a second suit is a departure from the norm for a multi. (I have said that for the general benefit there should be a clarification of this. In my view it will be helpful if the statement to be issued next week includes this information.) Your example agreement above seems to be no more than an agreement to stay within the regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 17 12:36:42 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:36:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> <4A5F3379.6010506@ulb.ac.be><4A5F453C.2080406@t-online.de> <4A604937.4050204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004201ca06ca$7ca97040$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > AG : this doesn't change anything to the fact that one description makes it an explicitly allowed bid, and the other an explicitly disallowed bid. Maybe i'm wrong, but I see this as contradictory. +=+ The topic in general has been about what is permitted by the exception and what remains as Brown Sticker. Brown Sticker bids are 'allowed' in tournaments that allow of Brown Stickers Sorry to be tautological, but you know what I mean!. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 12:35:59 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:35:59 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907170335l60f1a475x14444047a87623d6@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/17 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott (also ? ? ? ? ? ? ?perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > We are now murdering fewer people in > the United Kingdom - official. > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Thomas Dehn" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:26 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations >> ............. > Are you saying that, if I am playing the multi in an event > where the WBF system policy is in place, and my > partnership agrees not to open KJT9xx,KJT9xx,x,void > with a multi, then this multi is brown sticker (because it > contains the additional restriction not listed in the exception > that no side six card major suit is allowed)? >> > +=+ My superiors assure me that the requirement for the > exception to apply is that the hand shall be single suited > and this may be inferred from the standard description > provided. An understanding that there may be a second > suit is a departure from the norm for a multi. ?(I have said > that for the general benefit there should be a clarification > of this. In my view it will be helpful if the statement to be > issued next week includes this information.) > ? ? ?Your example agreement above seems to be no > more than an agreement to stay within the regulation. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Previously you stated "The guarantee of a second suit goes outside of the description of the Multi 2D in the Conventions Booklet ". And "What disallows it is the Systems Policy requirement that the convention must conform exactly to the description in the Guide to Completion " Now you are saying not that this is what is written but that "it may be inferred" from which can infer that it also may not be inferred. And apparently it hasn't been inferred by some of the players. It is not very helpful for a clarification to go out next week when the deadline for submission of systems was 10 days ago. I assume that the WBF will be extending the deadline to give these players that have been mislead by what now appears to be seriously inadequate regulations time to prepare an alternative system including if necessary documentation for their now classified Brown Sticker Convention or even some alternative Brown Sticker that they may have discarded in order to play what they considered reasonably a legal method. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 17 12:50:36 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:50:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred><004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A60577C.10402@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > We are now murdering fewer people in > the United Kingdom - official. > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Thomas Dehn" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:26 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > >> ............. >> > Are you saying that, if I am playing the multi in an event > where the WBF system policy is in place, and my > partnership agrees not to open KJT9xx,KJT9xx,x,void > with a multi, then this multi is brown sticker (because it > contains the additional restriction not listed in the exception > that no side six card major suit is allowed)? > > +=+ My superiors assure me that the requirement for the > exception to apply is that the hand shall be single suited > and this may be inferred from the standard description > provided. AG : they insure you that this may be inferred from the standard description. This doesn't mean that it may indeed be inferred, or that it's easy to do so. Hope they (and you) don't intend to be harsh on those who didn't infer the same thing. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 17 12:52:48 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:52:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <004201ca06ca$7ca97040$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> <4A5F3379.6010506@ulb.ac.be><4A5F453C.2080406@t-online.de> <4A604937.4050204@ulb.ac.be> <004201ca06ca$7ca97040$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A605800.6040002@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > We are now murdering fewer people in > the United Kingdom - official. > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:49 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > > > >> >> > AG : this doesn't change anything to the fact that one description makes > it an explicitly allowed bid, and the other an explicitly disallowed bid. > Maybe i'm wrong, but I see this as contradictory. > > +=+ The topic in general has been about what is > permitted by the exception and what remains as > Brown Sticker. Brown Sticker bids are 'allowed' > in tournaments that allow of Brown Stickers > Sorry to be tautological, but you know what > I mean!. > Okay, but you don't know what my problem is, apparently. So I'll repeat, being cautious with my words : "This doesn't change anything to the fact that one description makes it explicitly non-brown, and the other makes it explicitly brown. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this as contradictory." From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 17 13:10:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:10:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <004501ca0487$ad3813f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> <4A5F3379.6010506@ulb.ac.be><4A5F453C.2080406@t-online.de> <4A604937.4050204@ulb.ac.be><004201ca06ca$7ca97040$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A605800.6040002@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001801ca06cf$27914830$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > ----- Original Message ----- >> > AG : this doesn't change anything to the fact that one > description makes it an explicitly allowed bid, and > the other an explicitly disallowed bid. > Maybe i'm wrong, but I see this as contradictory. > > +=+ The topic in general has been about what is > permitted by the exception and what remains as > Brown Sticker. Brown Sticker bids are 'allowed' > in tournaments that allow of Brown Stickers > Sorry to be tautological, but you know what > I mean!. > Okay, but you don't know what my problem is, apparently. So I'll repeat, being cautious with my words : "This doesn't change anything to the fact that one description makes it explicitly non-brown, and the other makes it explicitly brown. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this as contradictory." > +=+ Both descriptions would make it Brown were it not for the exception by which some of the methods are allowed even when Brown Stickers are in general excluded. +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 17 13:16:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:16:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com><004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com><18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907170335l60f1a475x14444047a87623d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002b01ca06d0$0bfe2650$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Thomas Dehn" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:26 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations >> ............. I assume < +=+ Wayne, I do not wish to be rude. However, I am sure you realize that what you assume is of little relevance. I do not know how the question will be handled if there is found to be a problem. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 17 13:22:23 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:22:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Common Brown Sticker situations Message-ID: <003801ca06d0$dcbfc500$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations Correction- I am sorry, Thomas, I half made it look as I was responding to you.though > >>> ........... (Wayne Burrows).. > I assume > < > +=+ Wayne, > I do not wish to be rude. However, I am sure you > realize that what you assume is of little relevance. > I do not know how the question will be handled if > there is found to be a problem. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 13:26:58 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:26:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <002b01ca06d0$0bfe2650$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907170335l60f1a475x14444047a87623d6@mail.gmail.com> <002b01ca06d0$0bfe2650$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0907170426ua394966y68bd247dd1a2e7a2@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Grattan wrote:+=+ Wayne, > I do not wish to be rude. However, I am sure you > realize that what you assume is of little relevance. > I do not know how the question will be handled if > there is found to be a problem. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan: Wayne's a New Zealand internationalist. He plays in tournaments that will be run using these sets of regulations. More important, he needs to decide whether or not to invest significant amounts of time and money to prepare for / ateend said tournaments. He is saying that the regulations that you're creating can't be parsed and, therefore, can't be applied consistently. It's very illuminating to see you're response to this type of criticism. Telling your customers (even if they are your customers once removed) that you don't give a damn about what they think is a clear sign that there is something very very wrong... -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090717/c42f862a/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 17 14:00:01 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:00:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <001801ca06cf$27914830$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> <4A5F3379.6010506@ulb.ac.be><4A5F453C.2080406@t-online.de> <4A604937.4050204@ulb.ac.be><004201ca06ca$7ca97040$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A605800.6040002@ulb.ac.be> <001801ca06cf$27914830$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A6067C1.3000900@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > We are now murdering fewer people in > the United Kingdom - official. > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 11:52 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>> >>> >> AG : this doesn't change anything to the fact that one >> description makes it an explicitly allowed bid, and >> the other an explicitly disallowed bid. >> Maybe i'm wrong, but I see this as contradictory. >> >> +=+ The topic in general has been about what is >> permitted by the exception and what remains as >> Brown Sticker. Brown Sticker bids are 'allowed' >> in tournaments that allow of Brown Stickers >> Sorry to be tautological, but you know what >> I mean!. >> >> > Okay, but you don't know what my problem is, > apparently. > > So I'll repeat, being cautious with my words : > > "This doesn't change anything to the fact that one > description makes it explicitly non-brown, and the > other makes it explicitly brown. > Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this as contradictory." > > +=+ Both descriptions would make it Brown were > it not for the exception by which some of the methods > are allowed even when Brown Stickers are in general > excluded. +=+ > > > But only because somebody decided that negative prescripts are stronger than alloances, and that's not in the rules. Why not state it explicitly, if you want it to be so ? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 17 14:13:07 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:13:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Plain speech. References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com><001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com><001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com><18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net><001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560907170335l60f1a475x14444047a87623d6@mail.gmail.com><002b01ca06d0$0bfe2650$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0907170426ua394966y68bd247dd1a2e7a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002701ca06d7$f5d0af30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott wrote:+=+ Wayne, I do not wish to be rude. However, I am sure you realize that what you assume is of little relevance. I do not know how the question will be handled if there is found to be a problem. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan: Wayne's a New Zealand internationalist. He plays in tournaments that will be run using these sets of regulations. More important, he needs to decide whether or not to invest significant amounts of time and money to prepare for / ateend said tournaments. He is saying that the regulations that you're creating can't be parsed and, therefore, can't be applied consistently. It's very illuminating to see you're response to this type of criticism. Telling your customers (even if they are your customers once removed) that you don't give a damn about what they think is a clear sign that there is something very very wrong... -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090717/ad5def69/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 17 14:17:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:17:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <4A5E3E74.7010108@t-online.de> <2a1c3a560907141434g82bec9bice574c0148bdc6b9@mail.gmail.com> <004c01ca04dd$cbd507e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141704n4dce508bx2b515b990cca844f@mail.gmail.com> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <2a1c3a560907151315n2f7c8329jacc2886404450495@mail.gmail.com><5649052.1247691361711.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <4A5EC85B.30009@t-online.de> <002f01ca05fc$465fc760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A5F22D5.4030500@ulb.ac.be> <4A5F2B22.9030705@t-online.de> <4A5F3379.6010506@ulb.ac.be><4A5F453C.2080406@t-online.de> <4A604937.4050204@ulb.ac.be><004201ca06ca$7ca97040$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A605800.6040002@ulb.ac.be><001801ca06cf$27914830$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6067C1.3000 900@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002c01ca06d8$8d3d2e20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations >> >>> >>> >> AG : this doesn't change anything to the fact that one >> description makes it an explicitly allowed bid, and >> the other an explicitly disallowed bid. >> Maybe i'm wrong, but I see this as contradictory. >> >> +=+ The topic in general has been about what is >> permitted by the exception and what remains as >> Brown Sticker. Brown Sticker bids are 'allowed' >> in tournaments that allow of Brown Stickers >> Sorry to be tautological, but you know what >> I mean!. >> >> > Okay, but you don't know what my problem is, > apparently. > > So I'll repeat, being cautious with my words : > > "This doesn't change anything to the fact that one > description makes it explicitly non-brown, and the > other makes it explicitly brown. > Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this as contradictory." > > +=+ Both descriptions would make it Brown were > it not for the exception by which some of the methods > are allowed even when Brown Stickers are in general > excluded. +=+ > > > But only because somebody decided that negative prescripts are stronger than alloances, and that's not in the rules. *Why not state it explicitly, if you want it to be so ?* > +=+ *That* indeed is the argument by which I have urged a clarification be issued. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 16:16:42 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:16:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0907170426ua394966y68bd247dd1a2e7a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907170335l60f1a475x14444047a87623d6@mail.gmail.com> <002b01ca06d0$0bfe2650$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0907170426ua394966y68bd247dd1a2e7a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/7/17 richard willey : > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Grattan > wrote:+=+ Wayne, > > >> >> ? ? ?? I do not wish to be rude. However, I am sure you >> realize that what you assume is of little relevance. >> ? ? ? I do not know how the question will be handled if >> there is found to be a problem. >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > > Grattan: > > Wayne's a New Zealand internationalist. > He plays in tournaments that will be run using these sets of regulations. > > More important, he needs to decide whether or not to invest significant > amounts of time and money to prepare for / ateend said tournaments.? He is > saying that the regulations that you're creating can't be parsed and, > therefore, can't be applied consistently. > > It's very illuminating to see you're response to this type of criticism. > > Telling your customers (even if they are your customers once removed) that > you don't give a damn about what they think is a clear sign that there is > something very very wrong... Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that what anyone of us assume is of no relevance to what applies in Sao Paolo. That's decided by the WBF (Rules and Regulations Committee and Systems Committe, where Grattan is just one member of the former). There's no reason at all to be harsh on Grattan, who has been doing his best to reply to questions here. > > > -- > I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians > had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were > monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek > > Those were simpler times > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 17 16:49:20 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:49:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907170335l60f1a475x14444047a87623d6@mail.gmail.com> <002b01ca06d0$0bfe2650$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0907170426ua394966y68bd247dd1a2e7a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A608F70.4090806@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> >> Grattan: >> >> Wayne's a New Zealand internationalist. >> He plays in tournaments that will be run using these sets of regulations. >> >> More important, he needs to decide whether or not to invest significant >> amounts of time and money to prepare for / ateend said tournaments. He is >> saying that the regulations that you're creating can't be parsed and, >> therefore, can't be applied consistently. >> >> It's very illuminating to see you're response to this type of criticism. >> >> Telling your customers (even if they are your customers once removed) that >> you don't give a damn about what they think is a clear sign that there is >> something very very wrong... >> > > Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that what > anyone of us assume is of no relevance to what applies in Sao Paolo. > That's decided by the WBF (Rules and Regulations Committee and Systems > Committe, where Grattan is just one member of the former). > > There's no reason at all to be harsh on Grattan, who has been doing > his best to reply to questions here. > > AG : I don't think we're being harsh on Grattan. I don't think that saying rules are wrong and impossible to apply is harsh on Grattan. We're harsh on those who committed an impossible regulation. Apparently, he agreed to a certain extent with this statement. However, there is the second part, article 17, and a big question : if some rule is impossible to apply without extra official information, are you compelled to say you'll apply it nevertheless, and how are you going to do this ? Best regards Alain NB : article 17, often heard about in French detective series, tells that you can't be blamed for refusing to obey a demand (usually of arresting somebody) that you consider contrary to your mandate. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 17:43:25 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:43:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <4A608F70.4090806@ulb.ac.be> References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907170335l60f1a475x14444047a87623d6@mail.gmail.com> <002b01ca06d0$0bfe2650$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0907170426ua394966y68bd247dd1a2e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <4A608F70.4090806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2009/7/17 Alain Gottcheiner : > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >>> >>> Grattan: >>> >>> Wayne's a New Zealand internationalist. >>> He plays in tournaments that will be run using these sets of regulations. >>> >>> More important, he needs to decide whether or not to invest significant >>> amounts of time and money to prepare for / ateend said tournaments. ?He is >>> saying that the regulations that you're creating can't be parsed and, >>> therefore, can't be applied consistently. >>> >>> It's very illuminating to see you're response to this type of criticism. >>> >>> Telling your customers (even if they are your customers once removed) that >>> you don't give a damn about what they think is a clear sign that there is >>> something very very wrong... >>> >> >> Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that what >> anyone of us assume is of no relevance to what applies in Sao Paolo. >> That's decided by the WBF (Rules and Regulations Committee and Systems >> Committe, where Grattan is just one member of the former). >> >> There's no reason at all to be harsh on Grattan, who has been doing >> his best to reply to questions here. >> >> > AG : I don't think we're being harsh on Grattan. Richard said: "Telling your customers (even if they are your customers once removed) that you don't give a damn about what they think is a clear sign that there is something very very wrong..." IMO that IS being harsh on Grattan, who never said anything to that effect (him not giving a darn about what whoever thinks). Grattan simply told us what we can and can not include in a Multi, and what constitutes a BSC, according to the entity that is responsible for deciding this. And it's clear from the discussion here that some (many?) disagree with this, that is, they don't read the same thing into the relevant regulations. Nothing new there, this being BLML. > I don't think that > saying rules are wrong and impossible to apply is harsh on Grattan. > We're harsh on those who committed an impossible regulation. > Apparently, he agreed to a certain extent with this statement. > > > However, there is the second part, article 17, ?and a big question : if > some rule is impossible to apply without extra official information, are > you compelled to say you'll apply it nevertheless, and how are you going > to do this ? > > > Best regards > > > ?Alain > > > NB : article 17, often heard about in French detective series, tells > that you can't be blamed for refusing to obey a demand (usually of > arresting somebody) that you consider contrary to your mandate. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 17 18:27:02 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:27:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01ca04e8$105c03f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907141849i67ef1f55hd35b7ea83c3fa2c3@mail.gmail.com> <001001ca0525$3438ffc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907170335l60f1a475x14444047a87623d6@mail.gmail.com> <002b01ca06d0$0bfe2650$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0907170426ua394966y68bd247dd1a2e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <4A608F70.4090806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001001ca06fb$b850c720$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations >> > AG : I don't think we're being harsh on Grattan. I don't think that > saying rules are wrong and impossible to apply is harsh on Grattan. > We're harsh on those who committed an impossible regulation. > Apparently, he agreed to a certain extent with this statement. > > > However, there is the second part, article 17, and a big question : if > some rule is impossible to apply without extra official information, are > you compelled to say you'll apply it nevertheless, and how are you going > to do this ? > > NB : article 17, often heard about in French detective series, tells > that you can't be blamed for refusing to obey a demand (usually of > arresting somebody) that you consider contrary to your mandate. > +=+ I read Alain's comments as a criticism of those who create and issue the regulation. I sit in as an audible guest of the WBF Systems Committee (and a member of the EBL Systems Committee, where the agreed policy is to endorse the WBF Systems Policy and add one small item) but my responsibility to determine and issue the WBF Systems Policy it is not. In this forum I am the messenger, whom you may slay if you wish. The Policy has not changed in regard to this Exception since this first appeared and I am simply drawing readers' attention to how it will apply for Sao Paulo. After SP I do not expect the policy to change; I do expect any slack that has crept into the expression of it to be taken up. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 17 21:00:17 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:00:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A case still fresh In-Reply-To: <4A58F3C1.80509@nhcc.net> References: <200907061521.n66FLg3K011360@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A58F3C1.80509@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <007a01ca0710$d35fe9f0$7a1fbdd0$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > From: "Sven Pran" > > And don't forget the condition in Law 12 for assigning an adjusted score: > > The non-offending side must have been damaged. Does "damage" (as defined > by > > WBFLC) include the loss of rectification for an irregularity that was > > avoided? They have made it very clear that possible illegal plays are not to > > be taken into consideration when assessing "damage". > > I think the question for revokes has been answered, but I must have > missed that last. What exactly has the WBFLC "made ... very clear?" > > Illegal plays are not taken into account in claim rulings, and in > general putative _future_ irregularities aren't given any consideration > in assigning adjusted scores, but I haven't seen any hint that _past_ > irregularities are not considered. As far as I know, they always are > considered. Suppose a player is barred (after an IB, for example), and > there's another irregularity later that requires an adjusted score. > Would Sven or anybody else assign the adjusted score on the basis that > the barred player might bid? I was (of course) considering illegal actions in the future, not irregularities for which a rectification had already been made. So the answer to the last question is clearly: I shall not assign any adjusted score on the possibility that a player might violate a rectification. Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 21:02:58 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:02:58 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907150205l62b8c4c0yda4199fa9786aeb@mail.gmail.com> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907170335l60f1a475x14444047a87623d6@mail.gmail.com> <002b01ca06d0$0bfe2650$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0907170426ua394966y68bd247dd1a2e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <4A608F70.4090806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560907171202i26e7e50aw7abebdf383c3cc50@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/18 Harald Skj?ran : > 2009/7/17 Alain Gottcheiner : >> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >>>> >>>> Grattan: >>>> >>>> Wayne's a New Zealand internationalist. >>>> He plays in tournaments that will be run using these sets of regulations. >>>> >>>> More important, he needs to decide whether or not to invest significant >>>> amounts of time and money to prepare for / ateend said tournaments. ?He is >>>> saying that the regulations that you're creating can't be parsed and, >>>> therefore, can't be applied consistently. >>>> >>>> It's very illuminating to see you're response to this type of criticism. >>>> >>>> Telling your customers (even if they are your customers once removed) that >>>> you don't give a damn about what they think is a clear sign that there is >>>> something very very wrong... >>>> >>> >>> Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that what >>> anyone of us assume is of no relevance to what applies in Sao Paolo. >>> That's decided by the WBF (Rules and Regulations Committee and Systems >>> Committe, where Grattan is just one member of the former). >>> >>> There's no reason at all to be harsh on Grattan, who has been doing >>> his best to reply to questions here. >>> >>> >> AG : I don't think we're being harsh on Grattan. > > Richard said: "Telling your customers (even if they are your customers > once removed) that > you don't give a damn about what they think is a clear sign that there > is ?something very very wrong..." > > IMO that IS being harsh on Grattan, who never said anything to that > effect (him not giving a darn about what whoever thinks). > > Grattan simply told us what we can and can not include in a Multi, and > what constitutes a BSC, according to the entity that is responsible > for deciding this. And it's clear from the discussion here that some > (many?) disagree with this, that is, they don't read the same thing > into the relevant regulations. Nothing new there, this being BLML. > >> I don't think that >> saying rules are wrong and impossible to apply is harsh on Grattan. >> We're harsh on those who committed an impossible regulation. >> Apparently, he agreed to a certain extent with this statement. >> >> >> However, there is the second part, article 17, ?and a big question : if >> some rule is impossible to apply without extra official information, are >> you compelled to say you'll apply it nevertheless, and how are you going >> to do this ? >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> ?Alain >> >> >> NB : article 17, often heard about in French detective series, tells >> that you can't be blamed for refusing to obey a demand (usually of >> arresting somebody) that you consider contrary to your mandate. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Grattan told us here approximately a week after the time expired for registering systems for Sao Paulo. As I gather the committee or its agent intends on telling the players or their captains or someone some time next week. It is no use to players to be told after the fact that their methods are illegal when the illegality is derived by something not actually written in the regulation. Similar things occurred in Beijing where some players submitted Brown Sticker Conventions to be played against Conventional Openings where upon the WBF declarered that certain 'conventional' openings were 'natural' so as to protect those players from having to defend against otherwise legal Brown Sticker Conventions. Rumour has it that one pair that have submitted a HUM system for Sao Paulo are being leaned on to withdraw the system and or being threatened that they will not be allowed to play the said system. The danger of favouritism is too high when these matters are decided after the fact and all of the rulings appear to be to the advantage of one particular style of play. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 17 21:15:20 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:15:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <4A59A3E4.1000403@skynet.be> References: <200907081854.n68IshWa003100@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A58F87B.5090901@nhcc.net> <4A59A3E4.1000403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007b01ca0712$edaaf410$c900dc30$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .................. > > This may well be true, but in that case it MUST be acceptable to refuse > to answer such questions if it turns out the opponents will learn > something they are not entitled to. > Well, refuse is of course a bit harsh, but answering them in such way as > to not give UI must be acceptable. > > Without this, the following tactic becomes available: > 4NT -? - asking for minors - pass - 5Di - what does that show? > This question is silly, as it is quite clear that this should show > diamonds. In that particular case maybe, but in general: Absolutely not! I have in my system a sequence where effectively a 2D bid asks for major suits (partner has already promised one or both): The answer 2H shows spades, the answer 2S shows hearts and the answer 2NT shows both. Already knowing that 4NT asks for minors doesn't automatically imply that 5D shows diamonds, and a follow-up question on what the answer bid shows is perfectly legal. Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 23:22:37 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:22:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560907171202i26e7e50aw7abebdf383c3cc50@mail.gmail.com> References: <007901ca0538$3d570120$0302a8c0@Mildred> <18968832.1247668012953.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <001201ca06c6$2fba24e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560907170335l60f1a475x14444047a87623d6@mail.gmail.com> <002b01ca06d0$0bfe2650$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0907170426ua394966y68bd247dd1a2e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <4A608F70.4090806@ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560907171202i26e7e50aw7abebdf383c3cc50@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/7/17 Wayne Burrows : > 2009/7/18 Harald Skj?ran : >> 2009/7/17 Alain Gottcheiner : >>> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>> Grattan: >>>>> >>>>> Wayne's a New Zealand internationalist. >>>>> He plays in tournaments that will be run using these sets of regulations. >>>>> >>>>> More important, he needs to decide whether or not to invest significant >>>>> amounts of time and money to prepare for / ateend said tournaments. ?He is >>>>> saying that the regulations that you're creating can't be parsed and, >>>>> therefore, can't be applied consistently. >>>>> >>>>> It's very illuminating to see you're response to this type of criticism. >>>>> >>>>> Telling your customers (even if they are your customers once removed) that >>>>> you don't give a damn about what they think is a clear sign that there is >>>>> something very very wrong... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that what >>>> anyone of us assume is of no relevance to what applies in Sao Paolo. >>>> That's decided by the WBF (Rules and Regulations Committee and Systems >>>> Committe, where Grattan is just one member of the former). >>>> >>>> There's no reason at all to be harsh on Grattan, who has been doing >>>> his best to reply to questions here. >>>> >>>> >>> AG : I don't think we're being harsh on Grattan. >> >> Richard said: "Telling your customers (even if they are your customers >> once removed) that >> you don't give a damn about what they think is a clear sign that there >> is ?something very very wrong..." >> >> IMO that IS being harsh on Grattan, who never said anything to that >> effect (him not giving a darn about what whoever thinks). >> >> Grattan simply told us what we can and can not include in a Multi, and >> what constitutes a BSC, according to the entity that is responsible >> for deciding this. And it's clear from the discussion here that some >> (many?) disagree with this, that is, they don't read the same thing >> into the relevant regulations. Nothing new there, this being BLML. >> >>> I don't think that >>> saying rules are wrong and impossible to apply is harsh on Grattan. >>> We're harsh on those who committed an impossible regulation. >>> Apparently, he agreed to a certain extent with this statement. >>> >>> >>> However, there is the second part, article 17, ?and a big question : if >>> some rule is impossible to apply without extra official information, are >>> you compelled to say you'll apply it nevertheless, and how are you going >>> to do this ? >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> >>> ?Alain >>> >>> >>> NB : article 17, often heard about in French detective series, tells >>> that you can't be blamed for refusing to obey a demand (usually of >>> arresting somebody) that you consider contrary to your mandate. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Harald Skj?ran >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > Grattan told us here approximately a week after the time expired for > registering systems for Sao Paulo. > > As I gather the committee or its agent intends on telling the players > or their captains or someone some time next week. > > It is no use to players to be told after the fact that their methods > are illegal when the illegality is derived by something not actually > written in the regulation. > > Similar things occurred in Beijing where some players submitted Brown > Sticker Conventions to be played against Conventional Openings where > upon the WBF declarered that certain 'conventional' openings were > 'natural' so as to protect those players from having to defend against > otherwise legal Brown Sticker Conventions. > > Rumour has it that one pair that have submitted a HUM system for Sao > Paulo are being leaned on to withdraw the system and or being > threatened that they will not be allowed to play the said system. > > The danger of favouritism is too high when these matters are decided > after the fact and all of the rulings appear to be to the advantage of > one particular style of play. I agree with you about these matters, Wayne. But I reacted to the way Richard attacked Grattan here. There's no reason at all to attack the messenger. > > -- > Wayne Burrows > Palmerston North > New Zealand > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 18 06:58:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:58:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sao Paulo - Brown Sticker situations Message-ID: <005c01ca0764$8fec9110$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott At first I thought this was easy, but now I'm not so sure. A defender, on lead, drops a card face up on the table. (No question: the card was accidentally dropped and not intended to be played.) Must the exposed card be led, or can the defender lead his intended card? Does it make any difference whether the exposed card is an honor or not? Before you answer too quickly, note that L45C1 uses the word "held," and L45C4b says "player," not "declarer." Also L50 allows the Director to "designate otherwise." These aren't necessarily the only laws that apply; I suspect I'm missing something obvious here. As a general comment about BLML: I find answers and explanations about bridge laws and regulations quite helpful but comments on other posters' motives or intelligence unhelpful. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sat Jul 18 21:09:11 2009 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:09:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A new one on me In-Reply-To: <4A621258.7040202@nhcc.net> References: <4A621258.7040202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4A621DD7.5070309@verizon.net> Steve Willner wrote: > At first I thought this was easy, but now I'm not so sure. > > A defender, on lead, drops a card face up on the table. (No question: > the card was accidentally dropped and not intended to be played.) Must > the exposed card be led, or can the defender lead his intended card? > Does it make any difference whether the exposed card is an honor or not? > > Before you answer too quickly, note that L45C1 uses the word "held," and > L45C4b says "player," not "declarer." Also L50 allows the Director to > "designate otherwise." These aren't necessarily the only laws that > apply; I suspect I'm missing something obvious here. > > As a general comment about BLML: I find answers and explanations about > bridge laws and regulations quite helpful but comments on other posters' > motives or intelligence unhelpful. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > To be considered played by a defender, a card must be held in a position where partner might see it (L45C1) or otherwise designated as played (L45C4a) before it becomes a played card. If accidentally dropped, it becomes a penalty card per L49. If it is a major penalty card, it must be played at the first opportunity, which would be immediately (L50D1). If a minor penalty card, he is free to lead any other suit, or an honor in the suit of the exposed card (L50C). So, it does indeed matter whether or not the exposed card is an honor. If it is a minor penalty card, the Defender is free to lead his intended choice, unless it was another spot card in the suit of the exposed card. The TD would designate that the exposed card was not a penalty card when Declarer exercises a lead option (L50D2a). Otherwise, it remains a penalty card (L50D2b). I don't see the problem. Hirsch From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 19 09:21:30 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:21:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A new one on me References: <4A621258.7040202@nhcc.net> <4A621DD7.5070309@verizon.net> Message-ID: <000c01ca0841$96c0bab0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 8:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A new one on me > > > Steve Willner wrote: >> At first I thought this was easy, but now I'm not so sure. >> >> A defender, on lead, drops a card face up on the table. (No question: >> the card was accidentally dropped and not intended to be played.) Must >> the exposed card be led, or can the defender lead his intended card? >> Does it make any difference whether the exposed card is an honor or not? >> >> Before you answer too quickly, note that L45C1 uses the word "held," and >> L45C4b says "player," not "declarer." Also L50 allows the Director to >> "designate otherwise." These aren't necessarily the only laws that >> apply; I suspect I'm missing something obvious here. >> >> As a general comment about BLML: I find answers and explanations about >> bridge laws and regulations quite helpful but comments on other posters' >> motives or intelligence unhelpful. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > To be considered played by a defender, a card must be held in a position > where partner might see it (L45C1) or otherwise designated as played > (L45C4a) before it becomes a played card. If accidentally dropped, it > becomes a penalty card per L49. > > If it is a major penalty card, it must be played at the first > opportunity, which would be immediately (L50D1). If a minor penalty > card, he is free to lead any other suit, or an honor in the suit of the > exposed card (L50C). So, it does indeed matter whether or not the > exposed card is an honor. If it is a minor penalty card, the Defender > is free to lead his intended choice, unless it was another spot card in > the suit of the exposed card. > ............................................................................................................ > The TD would designate that the exposed card was not a penalty card when > Declarer exercises a lead option (L50D2a). Otherwise, it remains a > penalty card (L50D2b). > +=+ Declarer exercises this last option if the partner of the player with the penalty card is on lead. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ .................................................................................................... From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Sun Jul 19 12:14:45 2009 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (Ciska Zuur) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:14:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Great comment In-Reply-To: <000c01ca0841$96c0bab0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A621258.7040202@nhcc.net> <4A621DD7.5070309@verizon.net> <000c01ca0841$96c0bab0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Ciska Zuur (NL) wrote: Great comment! [I'm sorry about this comment on your motive :-)] Steve Willner wrote: As a general comment about BLML: I find answers and explanations about bridge laws and regulations quite helpful but comments on other posters' motives or intelligence unhelpful. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A new one on me > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > We are now murdering fewer people in > the United Kingdom - official. > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hirsch Davis" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 8:09 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] A new one on me > > >> >> >> >>> At first I thought this was easy, but now I'm not so sure. >>> >>> A defender, on lead, drops a card face up on the table. (No question: >>> the card was accidentally dropped and not intended to be played.) Must >>> the exposed card be led, or can the defender lead his intended card? >>> Does it make any difference whether the exposed card is an honor or not? >>> >>> Before you answer too quickly, note that L45C1 uses the word "held," and >>> L45C4b says "player," not "declarer." Also L50 allows the Director to >>> "designate otherwise." These aren't necessarily the only laws that >>> apply; I suspect I'm missing something obvious here. >>> >>> As a general comment about BLML: I find answers and explanations about >>> bridge laws and regulations quite helpful but comments on other posters' >>> motives or intelligence unhelpful. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >> >> To be considered played by a defender, a card must be held in a position >> where partner might see it (L45C1) or otherwise designated as played >> (L45C4a) before it becomes a played card. If accidentally dropped, it >> becomes a penalty card per L49. >> >> If it is a major penalty card, it must be played at the first >> opportunity, which would be immediately (L50D1). If a minor penalty >> card, he is free to lead any other suit, or an honor in the suit of the >> exposed card (L50C). So, it does indeed matter whether or not the >> exposed card is an honor. If it is a minor penalty card, the Defender >> is free to lead his intended choice, unless it was another spot card in >> the suit of the exposed card. >> > ............................................................................................................ >> The TD would designate that the exposed card was not a penalty card when >> Declarer exercises a lead option (L50D2a). Otherwise, it remains a >> penalty card (L50D2b). >> > +=+ Declarer exercises this last option if the partner of the player > with the penalty card is on lead. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > .................................................................................................... > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090719/cdf36eeb/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Jul 19 17:46:18 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:46:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <007b01ca0712$edaaf410$c900dc30$@no> References: <200907081854.n68IshWa003100@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A58F87B.5090901@nhcc.net><4A59A3E4.1000403@skynet.be> <007b01ca0712$edaaf410$c900dc30$@no> Message-ID: <5DC0EE7744EC4BD4AB5CB8E1670A5FA4@erdos> "Sven Pran" writes: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .................. >> >> This may well be true, but in that case it MUST be acceptable to refuse >> to answer such questions if it turns out the opponents will learn >> something they are not entitled to. >> Well, refuse is of course a bit harsh, but answering them in such way as >> to not give UI must be acceptable. >> >> Without this, the following tactic becomes available: >> 4NT -? - asking for minors - pass - 5Di - what does that show? >> This question is silly, as it is quite clear that this should show >> diamonds. > > In that particular case maybe, but in general: Absolutely not! > > I have in my system a sequence where effectively a 2D bid asks for major > suits (partner has already promised one or both): > The answer 2H shows spades, the answer 2S shows hearts and the answer 2NT > shows both. Here's another situation, which I play: 2D-2NT-3D 2D shows 4441 or 5440. 2NT asks for the short suit. Opener responds in the suit below the short suit, so 3D shows short *hearts*. From adam at tameware.com Sun Jul 19 19:11:57 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:11:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston Casebook & UI Guide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694eadd40907191011p640130d0s49499f5e21480cce@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > > I have combined the NABC+ and Non-NABC+ Houston NABC appeals into > two pdf documents downloadable from my website (under Bridge Laws > and Regulations). Thanks Marv! The Houston casebooks with commentary are available in combined PDFs here: ?http://marvinfrench.com/p1/laws®s/laws®s.htm and as individual PDFs (one per case) here: ? http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Houston2009.html If anyone wants to discuss an individual case please start a separate thread. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jul 19 21:02:14 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:02:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <200907141416.n6EEGc1Q010810@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200907141416.n6EEGc1Q010810@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A636DB6.6090209@nhcc.net> > From: "Robert Frick" > My understanding is that this issue was > discussed on blml years ago and the "you-can't-gain-by-a-second-revoke" > interpretation was unanimously accepted. Not unanimous, I'm afraid, but I'm glad to see that view is now accepted by Ton and Max Bavin, among others. > It also means that the law couldn't have been too clear. Yep! To be fair, writing perfect Laws is impossible, and some TD training will always be needed, but there are many places where the current Laws text could be improved. Grattan has told us of his efforts in that direction, but apparently the ACBL resisted them. Sad, but nothing to be done now. (Vote the rascals out of office if you have a vote, but virtually none of us do!) >> Declarer is >> on track to make 9 tricks in no trump. Declarer revokes (established) >> in a way that does not help him, so now the projected outcome is the >> same 9 tricks minus 1 for rectification equals 8. Then the defense >> revokes (established) in a way that gains them one trick. Declarer >> hence takes 8 tricks. What is the final result? > 1. If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of > the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the > first revoke. OK. But keep separate equity and rectification. > 2. The position after the first revoke is that the declarer is on the way > to get 8 tricks. Nine tricks less a rectification trick. > 3. With no rectification for the second revoke (or first revoke), declarer > ends up with 8 tricks. The second revoke gains defenders a trick. Restore equity via 64C, so nine tricks won by declarer. No rectification tricks because both sides revoked: final result nine tricks to declarer. In effect, the defenders were penalized for their revoke not only by losing the ill-gotten gain for the revoke itself but also by losing the rectification trick they would otherwise have been entitled to. This seems fair to me, but more important, it seems to be what the Laws text requires. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jul 19 21:16:10 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:16:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Common Brown Sticker situations In-Reply-To: <200907161441.n6GEfl8P007758@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200907161441.n6GEfl8P007758@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A6370FA.50801@nhcc.net> > From: Matthias Berghaus > We have two different aspects, which Grattan named "method" and "style". > If you agree to open the Multi only with length in a known or unknown > side suit, _promising_ length in a second suit, the Multi becomes BS, > because this is "method". If you agree to the things you named above > [void, side major, etc.] you do not _promise_ anything, I fail to see how one kind of agreement is "method" and the other is "style," nor -- more important -- do I see anything in the written regulations that distinguishes one kind of agreement from another. If "always a side singleton" is legal, or even "not 5332," what in the written regulation prohibits agreements about side suit length? I can well imagine that authorities might want to make such agreements illegal, but it seems to me they should say so explicitly and plainly. If some agreements about distribution are legal and others aren't, the competitors ought to be told _in advance- which are which. > "I do not open a Multi on 5332, anything else goes" If both partners agree on that condition and base their subsequent bidding and play on it, why isn't it method? By the way, I didn't see that anyone has criticized Grattan for the Sao Paulo regulations. There has been strong criticism of those who are interpreting the regulations as Grattan reports, but that's a different matter. Even as to those people, whoever they are, I don't think the criticism has been personal but rather has been about the interpretation that has been issued and its timing. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jul 19 21:05:03 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:05:03 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Taking Players Away from the Table Message-ID: <1EF2F67A8F9546BFA01BA2F44FA75C1B@MARVLAPTOP> The ACBL TDs have a policy of taking players away from the table in MI cases, even when it's too late for a player to change the last call. The standard question is, "Would you have done anything different in the auction in the absence of the misinformation?" Wrong question, of course. It should be, "Would you have *considered* doing anything different in the absence of the misinformation?" Since there can be no change of call, this procedure wastes valuable playing time. The question can be asked later, if necessary (and usually there is no evidence of damage, making the answer moot). It is also unfair to force a player to give a spur-of-the moment answer to a hypothetical question, interfering with other concerns that may be occupying the player's mind. The TDs justify this procedure by saying that it is the best opportunity to get good information before it is tainted by thinking time. One confessed that the main reason is to catch a player in a self-damaging statement that the TD would not have considered. I ask BLML for opinions on this matter. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 20 01:56:24 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:56:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve Willner: >>As a general comment about BLML: I find answers and explanations >>about bridge laws and regulations quite helpful but comments on >>other posters' motives or intelligence unhelpful. Ciska Zuur: >Great comment! > >[I'm sorry about this comment on your motive :-)] Richard Hills: Who said, "The Laws should be applied consistently"? Grattan Endicott? Nigel Guthrie? No, it was retired Test spin bowler Stuart MacGill (208 wickets at 29.02). He made the valid point that it was inappropriate to criticise an umpire's motives or intelligence when the umpire made an understandable error of judgement, such as an umpire falsely believing that the bat made contact with a closely adjacent ball when the wooden noise heard was actually the sound of the bat hitting the ground. But Stuart MacGill also believed that an umpire should be suspended if instead the umpire made an unLawful error in inconsistently applying the Laws of Cricket. Law 32.1: "The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any member of the fielding side and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground." Richard Hills: In an incident in the current Second Ashes Test at Lords, the two field umpires were uncertain whether a claimed catch was actually a fair catch, so consulted the third video umpire for a decision. On viewing slow-motion replays of the claimed catch the third umpire correctly ruled that the catch was fair. However, the third umpire erred in applying the Laws by failing to view slow-motion replays of the bowler's delivery stride. If he had done so, the third umpire would have realised that the second clause of Law 32.1 was applicable, "...not being a No ball...", so then the third umpire should have obeyed the Laws by ruling Not Out rather than the actual unLawful decision of Caught. 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 Jul 20 03:21:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:21:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000601ca08d8$69697ec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > In an incident in the current Second Ashes Test at Lords, the two > field umpires were uncertain whether a claimed catch was actually a > fair catch, so consulted the third video umpire for a decision. On > viewing slow-motion replays of the claimed catch the third umpire > correctly ruled that the catch was fair. > > However, the third umpire erred in applying the Laws by failing to > view slow-motion replays of the bowler's delivery stride. If he > had done so, the third umpire would have realised that the second > clause of Law 32.1 was applicable, "...not being a No ball...", so > then the third umpire should have obeyed the Laws by ruling Not Out > rather than the actual unLawful decision of Caught. > +=+ However, under the current Laws the third (TV) umpire may only be consulted about certain decisions. Inter alia, he does not make decisions on 'no balls' (cases where the bowler fails to have at least one foot grounded within a defined area when he releases the ball from his hand). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 20 06:57:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:57:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601ca08d8$69697ec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>But Stuart MacGill also believed that an umpire should be >>suspended if instead the umpire made an unLawful error in >>inconsistently applying the Laws of Cricket. [snip] Grattan Endicott: >+=+ However, under the current Laws the third (TV) umpire >may only be consulted about certain decisions. Inter alia, he >does not make decisions on 'no balls' (cases where the bowler >fails to have at least one foot grounded within a defined area >when he releases the ball from his hand). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Just as the Laws of Duplicate Bridge are supplemented by a Law 78D Condition of Contest for a particular event (which CoC the Director in charge must understand and correctly apply), so the Laws of Cricket are supplemented by ICC rules for Test matches (which ICC Rules the Third Umpire must understand and correctly apply). Standard Test Match Playing Conditions, Rule 3.2.3.1: "The third umpire has to determine whether the batsman has been caught. However, when reviewing the television replay(s), if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball, he shall indicate that the batsman is not out." Richard Hills: Under the Laws of Cricket a No Ball is legally non-existent and cannot legally be hit by the batsman. (Although if the batsman illegally hits a No Ball into the Long Room, then as the non- offending player the batsman is still credited with a Six.) So while the Third Umpire lacks the General Authority to decide whether an actual ball is legally a No Ball (and rightly so, since No Balls are so frequent that the determination of No Balls by the Third Umpire would make watching England batting slower than watching grass grow), the Third Umpire indeed has the Specific Responsibility to decide upon a No Ball if critical for his yes-or-no answer to "Howzat?". The relevant point I am making for this Bridge Laws Mailing List is that an error in judgement by a Director in charge when determining the facts is permissible, but an error in Law by a Director in charge is much graver and career threatening. For example, an Aussie National Director who is now highly competent had his promotion to the National level deferred for a year following a highly incompetent unLawful ruling by him at an Aussie National Championship many years ago. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 20 09:35:04 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:35:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus asked: >So who is the judge of what the crafters intended, or what their words >mean? Shouldn't we rely on the testimony of those crafters? We can't >ask Shakespeare, but we can ask Grattan, Kojak, Ton and others (in no >particular order, just naming those who come easily to the mind of this >BLML reader, because they post here). Isaac Asimov, "The Immortal Bard": [big snip] The physicist disregarded him. He made out an untouched cocktail on the bar some feet away and sidled toward it. "I told the immortal bard that we even gave college courses in Shakespeare." "_I_ give one." "I know. I enrolled him in your evening extension course. I never saw a man so eager to find out what posterity thought of him as poor Bill was. He worked hard at it." "You enrolled William Shakespeare in my course?" mumbled Robertson. Even as an alcoholic fantasy, the thought staggered him. And was it an alcoholic fantasy? He was beginning to recall a bald man with a queer way of talking.... "Not under his real name, of course," said Dr. Welch. "Never mind what he went under. It was a mistake, that's all. A big mistake. Poor fellow." He had the cocktail now and shook his head at it. "Why was it a mistake? What happened?" "I had to send him back to 1600," roared Welch indignantly. "How much humiliation do you think a man can stand?" "What humiliation are you talking about?" Dr. Welch tossed off the cocktail. "Why, you poor simpleton, you _flunked_ him." 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 20 16:28:12 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:28:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601ca08d8$69697ec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000601ca08d8$69697ec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A647EFC.80307@ulb.ac.be> Sorry for not exactly responding to the previous message in this threat. For some obscure reason, a question I sent was sent back twice. I don't see anything offensive about it, however. So I try using this subterfuge to make it reach you. thank you for your help; Alain ----------- This case created much ado in Belgium. Could you help us solve it ? N E S W 1NT X 2H p p 3C 3S p p p Double : 1-suited (not alertable) 2H : intended as transfer. Unclear whether it is in NS's system. Not alerted. Assume that the non-alert dosn't change anything to EW's bidding (the 3C bid is as obvious over hearts as over spades, and EW didn't claim anything about this). 1. Is South allowed to bid 3S on KQJxxx and out ? He has UI from the non-alert, but also equivalent AI from the pass. The AC ruled that, anyway, the bid was obvious (in similar situations, but with North completing the transfer, all Souths, including YT, bid 3S). 2. Is North allowed to understand what happened, and pass 3S ? The AC ruled that 3S is impossible after a NF 2H, whence he is. 3S-1, the table result, was maintained, and was above average .for NS. West is still telling everyone who counts in Brussels how wrong the AC was. Your opinion ? Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 16:36:13 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:36:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A647EFC.80307@ulb.ac.be> References: <000601ca08d8$69697ec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A647EFC.80307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 16:39:52 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:39:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A647EFC.80307@ulb.ac.be> References: <000601ca08d8$69697ec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A647EFC.80307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2009/7/20 Alain Gottcheiner : > Sorry for not exactly responding to the previous message in this threat. > For some obscure reason, a question I sent was sent back twice. I don't > see anything offensive about it, however. > So I try using this subterfuge to make it reach you. > > thank you for your help; > > Alain > > ----------- > > This case created much ado in Belgium. Could you help us solve it ? > > > N ? ? ? E ? ? ? S ? ? ?W > > 1NT ? X ? ? 2H ? ? p > p ? ? ? ?3C ? ?3S ? ? ?p > p ? ? ? ?p > > Double : 1-suited (not alertable) > 2H : intended as transfer. Unclear whether it is in NS's system. Not > alerted. > > Assume that the non-alert dosn't change anything to EW's bidding (the 3C > bid is as obvious over hearts as over spades, and EW didn't claim > anything about this). > > 1. Is South allowed to bid 3S on KQJxxx and out ? > He has UI from the non-alert, but also equivalent AI from the pass. The > AC ruled that, anyway, the bid was obvious (in similar situations, but > with North completing the transfer, all Souths, including YT, bid 3S). > > 2. Is North allowed to understand what happened, and pass 3S ? The AC > ruled that 3S is impossible after a NF 2H, whence he is. > > 3S-1, the table result, was maintained, and was above average .for NS. > > West is still telling everyone who counts in Brussels how wrong the AC was. > > Your opinion ? Don't know what happened to my first reply... I agree with the TD and the AC (and most of the world) that there's no logical alternative to south's 3S rebid on the second round of bidding. So the UI from the non-alert doesn't matter at all. There's no hand that made a natural non-forcing 2H reply that would come back with 3S. So it's blindingly obvious for anyone what's happened. Thus I agree with the AC decision. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > Best regards > > ?Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Jul 20 16:57:07 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:57:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A647EFC.80307@ulb.ac.be> References: <000601ca08d8$69697ec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A647EFC.80307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A6485C3.1030201@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > > This case created much ado in Belgium. Could you help us solve it ? > > > N E S W > > 1NT X 2H p > p 3C 3S p > p p > > Double : 1-suited (not alertable) > 2H : intended as transfer. Unclear whether it is in NS's system. Not > alerted. > > Assume that the non-alert dosn't change anything to EW's bidding (the 3C > bid is as obvious over hearts as over spades, and EW didn't claim > anything about this). > > 1. Is South allowed to bid 3S on KQJxxx and out ? > He has UI from the non-alert, but also equivalent AI from the pass. The > AC ruled that, anyway, the bid was obvious (in similar situations, but > with North completing the transfer, all Souths, including YT, bid 3S). agreed: UI didn't favor 3S and it's doubtful there was any LA to 3S. > > 2. Is North allowed to understand what happened, and pass 3S ? why not? did he get some UI you forgot to tell us? jpr > The AC ruled that 3S is impossible after a NF 2H, whence he is. > > 3S-1, the table result, was maintained, and was above average .for NS. > > West is still telling everyone who counts in Brussels how wrong the AC was. > > Your opinion ? > > > Best regards > > Alain -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 21 01:24:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:24:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000601ca08d8$69697ec0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A647EFC.80307@ulb.ac.be> <4A6485C3.1030201@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <002f01ca0991$6104c190$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > > This case created much ado in Belgium. Could you help us solve it ? > > > N E S W > > 1NT X 2H p > p 3C 3S p > p p > > Double : 1-suited (not alertable) > 2H : intended as transfer. Unclear whether it is in NS's system. Not > alerted. > > Assume that the non-alert dosn't change anything to EW's bidding (the 3C > bid is as obvious over hearts as over spades, and EW didn't claim > anything about this). > > 1. Is South allowed to bid 3S on KQJxxx and out ? > He has UI from the non-alert, but also equivalent AI from the pass. The > AC ruled that, anyway, the bid was obvious (in similar situations, but > with North completing the transfer, all Souths, including YT, bid 3S). agreed: UI didn't favor 3S and it's doubtful there was any LA to 3S. > > 2. Is North allowed to understand what happened, and pass 3S ? why not? did he get some UI you forgot to tell us? jpr The AC ruled that 3S is impossible after a NF 2H, whence he is. 3S-1, the table result, was maintained, and was above average . for NS. West is still telling everyone who counts in Brussels how wrong the AC was. Your opinion ? Best regards > Alain +=+ The 3S bid is quite obviously incompatible witrh a 2H that is a weak natural takeout. So there can be no problem about North's decision to leave the contract in Spades. However, the real question is surely whether, with correct information, East would pass 2H rather than bid 3C. Assuming that the partnership understanding is that the 2H bid is a transfer, before deciding upon his action East is entitled to know that North has passed a transfer bid What do we think he would have done had he had the correct explanation of the auction before he made his bid of 3C? The Director has to decide whether Law 21B3 applies. J-PR says the 3C bid is as obvious over hearts as over spades, and EW didn't claim anything about this. If the Director had been summoned to the table before West passed 3S he could have applied Law 21B1(a), could he not? So what are we saying about the EW rights here? And what questions did the Director put to East? There seems to be a suggestion that the question of East's passing 2H did not arise, but the question must have been apparent to the Director and I am wondering whether he failed to explore it (without putting words into East's mouth). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 21 02:54:43 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:54:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A case now stale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski (6th July): >Hi gang, > >Polish Summer Congress in S?awa ?l?ska, a case from today. > >Declarer, my teammate, is in a spade contract. >His clubs are AKx opposite a doubleton in dummy. >He cashes his AK in clubs and plays a third club >with the intention of ruffing it in dummy. >Lefty follows twice, then on the third round of the suit >goes into the tank, puts his cards on the table, >picks them up, scratches his head, analyses, >shakes his head, fumbles, looks at the ceiling etc. >After a minute a spectator cannot take it any more >and says "Jesus, what the hell are you doing, you still >have one club to follow suit!". > >My teammate called the TD claiming that the LHO >was obviously on his way to revoking and that the >kibitzer's remark prevented him from doing so. >The actual ruling (the TD ruled "play on" >and then "result stands" after the hand was over) >is secondary here, the key questions are what the ruling >should have been and _why_? > >Does it matter if the viewer was my teammate's kibitzer, >potential revoker's kibitzer or a neutral one? > >Please provide law numbers on which you are intending >to base your ruling. Richard Hills (21st July): Apologies for my delay in entering this thread; I was having way too much fun bashing bunnies in secondary events at the Aussie Winter Nationals (achieving four first places and two second places in the six secondary events). Blmlers who enjoy my attempts at humour can find several articles by me in the Daily Bulletins: http://www.abf.com.au/events/anc/2009/bulletins.asp Law 44C - Requirement to Follow Suit "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." Richard Hills (21st July): In my opinion, if a player has _not yet_ revoked, that player may use UI to avoid revoking due to the Law 44C "takes precedence" phrase. Ergo, I fully agree with the TD's "result stands" ruling. (But as TD I would also have ejected the kibitzer from the playing area pursuant to Law 76A1 and Law 76B5.) Note that Law 44C is not contradicted by Law 43B2(b), since a mandatory criterion for the application of Law 43B2(b) is the unLawful attempt by dummy to correct declarer's _pre-existing_ unestablished revoke. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 21 04:01:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Penalty paid? (L57A) Message-ID: <53736.24.46.179.117.1248141672.squirrel@email.powweb.com> The problem, apparently from play and discussed on IBLF, is that a trick 12, declarer leads a winner and LHO has to decide between a high heart and a high diamond. Declarer has a small heart. Before LHO can play, RHO plays a small diamond (retaining a small club). This at least in theory resolves the guess for LHO. Obviously, L57 applies and declarer can force LHO to not to play a card of a given suit. Declarer has to guess whether LHO has a diamond or a club. Suppose Declarer guesses wrong. I would have thought that was the end of the story. One person there suggested that if declarer guesses wrong, then the UI laws apply. I would have thought that applying the UI laws violated L12B2, that the director can't award an adjusted score just because the law seems unduly severe or advantageous. But then when I tried to work out the analogy to the revoke laws, I got lost. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 21 06:06:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:06:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Penalty paid? (L57A) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <53736.24.46.179.117.1248141672.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >The problem, apparently from play and discussed on IBLF, is that a trick >12, declarer leads a winner and LHO has to decide between a high heart >and a high diamond. Declarer has a small heart. Before LHO can play, RHO >plays a small diamond (retaining a small club). This at least in theory >resolves the guess for LHO. > >Obviously, L57 applies and declarer can force LHO to not to play a card >of a given suit. Declarer has to guess whether LHO has a diamond or a >club. > >Suppose Declarer guesses wrong. > >I would have thought that was the end of the story. One person there >suggested that if declarer guesses wrong, then the UI laws apply. > >I would have thought that applying the UI laws violated L12B2, that the >director can't award an adjusted score just because the law seems unduly >severe or advantageous. But then when I tried to work out the analogy to >the revoke laws, I got lost. W.C. Sellar (1898-1951) and R.J. Yeatman (1897-1968), 1066 and All That, A Memorable History of England, comprising all the parts you can remember, including 103 Good Things, 5 Bad Kings, and 2 Genuine Dates: "How far did the Lords Repellent drive Henry III into the arms of Pedro the Cruel? (Protractors may not be used.)" Richard Hills: Law 12B2 is not Lords Appellant, since Law 23 permits the Director to award an adjusted score. Indeed, this case is a classic example of why it is A Good Thing for Law 23 to apply to the play as well as to the auction. Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). 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*. * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 21 06:26:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:26:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Penalty paid? (L57A) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:06:11 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> The problem, apparently from play and discussed on IBLF, is that a trick >> 12, declarer leads a winner and LHO has to decide between a high heart >> and a high diamond. Declarer has a small heart. Before LHO can play, RHO >> plays a small diamond (retaining a small club). This at least in theory >> resolves the guess for LHO. >> >> Obviously, L57 applies and declarer can force LHO to not to play a card >> of a given suit. Declarer has to guess whether LHO has a diamond or a >> club. >> >> Suppose Declarer guesses wrong. >> >> I would have thought that was the end of the story. One person there >> suggested that if declarer guesses wrong, then the UI laws apply. >> >> I would have thought that applying the UI laws violated L12B2, that the >> director can't award an adjusted score just because the law seems unduly >> severe or advantageous. But then when I tried to work out the analogy to >> the revoke laws, I got lost. > > W.C. Sellar (1898-1951) and R.J. Yeatman (1897-1968), 1066 and All That, > A Memorable History of England, > comprising all the parts you can remember, > including 103 Good Things, > 5 Bad Kings, and > 2 Genuine Dates: > > "How far did the Lords Repellent drive Henry III into the arms of Pedro > the Cruel? (Protractors may not be used.)" > > Richard Hills: > > Law 12B2 is not Lords Appellant, since Law 23 permits the Director to > award an adjusted score. Indeed, this case is a classic example of why > it is A Good Thing for Law 23 to apply to the play as well as to the > auction. > > Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage > > "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been > aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the > non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if > not completed). 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*. > * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass." Partner probably has better than a 50% chance of guessing right, and declarer probably has a better than 50% chance of guessing right. So Law 23 probably doesn't apply as I normally understand it. Is it supposed to wipe out any rub-of-the-green luck from any irregularity? But the UI laws work fine if you don't think L57 was sufficient rectification and you don't feel bound by L12B2. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 21 06:30:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:30:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Penalty paid? (L57A) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: W.C. Sellar and R.J. Yeatman, 1066 and All That: "Henry VII was very good at answering the Irish Question, and made a Law called Poyning's Law by which the Irish could have a Parliament of their own, but the English were to pass all the Acts in it. This was obviously a very Good Thing." Robert Frick: >...Before LHO can play, RHO plays a small diamond (retaining a >small club). This at least in theory resolves the guess for LHO... Richard Hills And yes, after Law 23 rectification for declarer via an adjusted score, as TD I would also rule it obviously a very Good Thing to require RHO to consequently pay a Law 90B7 procedural penalty. Law 90B7: "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant." 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 Jul 21 08:34:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:34:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Saint Patrick's Day no more we'll keep, his colour can't be seen, For there's a cruel law agin the wearin' o' the Green. Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). 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*. * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass." Robert Frick: >Partner probably has better than a 50% chance of guessing right, and >declarer probably has a better than 50% chance of guessing right. So >Law 23 probably doesn't apply as I normally understand it. Is it >supposed to wipe out any rub-of-the-green luck from any irregularity? Richard Hills: Although rub-of-the-green has been extensively discussed on blml in the past (most amusingly by David Burn in a 28th March 2008 post), it seems that the concept of rub-of-the-green as it applies to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is still not yet fully understood by all blmlers. Suppose that you pick up a balanced 17 hcp and decide to start the auction with a Standard Hogwartsian 1NT opening bid. Alas, due to your wits being muddled with a love potion, you have misread the duplicate board and it was actually partner who was entitled to be dealer. As usual LHO declines their Law 29A option to accept your OBOOT, so as usual Law 31B requires you to guess the final contract, since partner is now compelled to pass for the entire auction. Since partner's average holding will be 11 hcp, your guess at a replacement call is bidding 3NT. (a) Alas, partner holds only 6 hcp. (b) However, four finesses work, so you score a cold top for +600 while the rest of the field is scoring +150 in 1NT. While the Law 23 footnote "partner's enforced pass" is applicable, the mandatory Law 23 criterion "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side" is Not applicable, so the +600 in 3NT is classified as a rub-of-the-green non- infraction. However... In Bob's original case, RHO "could have been aware" that LHO has a 100% history of succumbing to memory squeezes, so "at the time of his irregularity" RHO could have calculated that by playing out of turn RHO "could well damage the non-offending side" by reducing a 100% memory squeeze to a 50% Law 57A guess by declarer. Note that Law 23 states "aware ... could well damage", not "aware ... will damage", so even if RHO's calculations of the percentages are a bit askew Law 23 still applies to RHO's Awareness Of Potential Damage. Note also that ultimately it is the Director who "considers" whether RHO's suspiciously timed POOT meant that "the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity" under Law 23, or whether instead the Director "considers" that declarer has merely rub-of-the-green misguessed under Law 57A. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Jul 21 08:36:31 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:36:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A warning Message-ID: <1MT8xj-0nV4r20@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> FWIW a team match behind screens (premier league). On one side of the screen player A explains one of his own bids correctly, while on the other side player B gives MI about this bid. In consequence the opposing side does not find their best spot. They claim damage. The TD said NO, the AC says Yes. Furthermore the AC gives a warning to pair AB for giving MI (lets say in a rather simple 1st-round-situation). Now player A questiones the consequences of this warning. First, he did nothing wrong and second, he wants to know, whether this warning has (may have) any consequences for his future bridge carreer. Assume no / your own NBO regulations. TIA Peter From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 21 09:06:33 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:06:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A warning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1MT8xj-0nV4r20@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter Eidt: >FWIW a team match behind screens (premier league). > >On one side of the screen player A explains one of his >own bids correctly, while on the other side player B >gives MI about this bid. In consequence the opposing >side does not find their best spot. They claim damage. > >The TD said NO, the AC says Yes. > >Furthermore the AC gives a warning to pair AB for >giving MI (lets say in a rather simple 1st-round- >situation). > >Now player A questions the consequences of this >warning. First, he did nothing wrong and second, he >wants to know, whether this warning has (may have) >any consequences for his future bridge career. > >Assume no / your own NBO regulations. Richard Hills: (1) Giving MI is an infraction, whether or not it causes damage. (2) An infraction is a Law 90A violation of correct procedure (see the Definition of "irregularity"), so may attract a Procedural Penalty. (3) A warning is the mildest form of Procedural Penalty, but suggesting that a PP for a later identical offence may be more severe (for example, under some regulations there is a fixed 6-imp PP for MI whether or not the MI causes any damage). (4) Except for the special case of an individual event (see Law 12C3) one shares partner's PP. Indeed, since in this case it is a team match, then team-mates also share the warning PP (see the Definition of "contestant"). 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 rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 21 09:18:59 2009 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:18:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revoke... late call Message-ID: <000601ca09d3$84741530$8d5c3f90$@nl> Declarer plays 3 NT, holding AK987 in spades with 103 in dummy. The J appears with LHO at the second round of spades, RHO wins the third round of spades with the Q whilst LHO discards a diamond. A few tricks later declarer regains the lead and plays the 8 of spades, nobody is following suit. At the last spade RHO first discards a heart (as he did on the previous one), but now discovers he still holds the 6 of spades and replaces the heart by his last spade. No TD is called and declarer waives the penalty card. Declarer makes nine tricks. After play ceases and it becomes clear to all players that declarer has not reached to the best possible result, the former dummy calls for the TD and explains that there has been an established revoke on the fourth spade round. Declarer explains his 'odd' behaviour of waiving the penalty card by the fact that he had not realized that there had already been an established revoke -in his mind there was only a non-established revoke at hand with a possible penalty card that was of no use to him. The opponents however claim that declarer by waiving the penalty for the non established revoke has also lost his right to ask for application of the penalty for the established revoke. Has anyone an idea how to handle this? In my younger years as a TD I used to tell people that had made their own rules that they absolutely should continue to do so, but should not expect any interference from me when all of a sudden they felt things went not their way as they might have under the WBF laws - but I was told that this is not the right approach... Thanks! Rob Rob Bosman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090721/31d2aacd/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 21 09:37:09 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:37:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] revoke... late call [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601ca09d3$84741530$8d5c3f90$@nl> Message-ID: Rob Bosman: [snip] >Declarer explains his "odd" behaviour of waiving the penalty card >by the fact that he had not realized that there had already been >an established revoke - in his mind there was only a non- >established revoke at hand with a possible penalty card that was >of no use to him. > >The opponents however claim that declarer by waiving the penalty >for the non established revoke has also lost his right to ask for >application of the penalty for the established revoke. > >Has anyone an idea how to handle this? Law 10B: "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions." Rob Bosnan: >In my younger years as a TD I used to tell people that had made >their own rules that they absolutely should continue to do so, >but should not expect any interference from me when all of a >sudden they felt things went not their way as they might have >under the WBF laws - but I was told that this is not the right >approach... Richard Hills; Welcome to blml, Rob. Do you have any cats? The recovering blmler John (MadDog) Probst would have sympathy for your youthful approach as a TD, since like me MadDog has an eternally youthful enthusiastic approach to bridge. However, the way a Director should exercise her discretion under Law 10B is delineated by the first two sentences of Law 84D: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side. He seeks to restore equity." 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 21 09:41:16 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:41:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A warning In-Reply-To: <1MT8xj-0nV4r20@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> References: <1MT8xj-0nV4r20@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A65711C.5040304@t-online.de> I would like to clarify some things. Peter Eidt schrieb: > FWIW a team match behind screens (premier league). > On one side of the screen player A explains one of his > own bids correctly, while on the other side player B > gives MI about this bid. In consequence the opposing > side does not find their best spot. They claim damage. > The TD said NO, the AC says Yes. > Furthermore the AC gives a warning to pair AB for > giving MI (lets say in a rather simple 1st-round-situation). They gave a warning (the least severe disciplinary penalty in the applicable regulations) for "not knowing the system", not for the MI. Now the player wonders whether they can hand out a disciplinary penalty for a violation of procedure. The regulations do not list "warning" as a possible consequence of a violation of procedure, neither does TFLB. The regs list a warning as the first step of disciplinary penalties. It carries no penalty, but further violations would carry increasingly bigger penalties. > > Now player A questiones the consequences of this > warning. First, he did nothing wrong and second, he > wants to know, whether this warning has (may have) > any consequences for his future bridge carreer. The AC mentioned in its comment that this warning would lead to more severe penalties in future cases. Now player A wonders how something his partner did can have a consequence for him. The AC explicitly noted that this procedural penalty applies to both players, so should player B forget his system on some future occasion he would be handed a more severe penalty, since he was given that warning when _his partner_ forgot the system... He finds this somewhat grotesque ( as do I, by the way). Best regards Matthias > > Assume no / your own NBO regulations. > > TIA Peter > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 21 09:53:09 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:53:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A warning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A6573E5.3050205@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Peter Eidt: > >> FWIW a team match behind screens (premier league). >> >> On one side of the screen player A explains one of his >> own bids correctly, while on the other side player B >> gives MI about this bid. In consequence the opposing >> side does not find their best spot. They claim damage. >> >> The TD said NO, the AC says Yes. >> >> Furthermore the AC gives a warning to pair AB for >> giving MI (lets say in a rather simple 1st-round- >> situation). >> >> Now player A questions the consequences of this >> warning. First, he did nothing wrong and second, he >> wants to know, whether this warning has (may have) >> any consequences for his future bridge career. >> >> Assume no / your own NBO regulations. > > Richard Hills: > > (1) Giving MI is an infraction, whether or not it causes > damage. > > (2) An infraction is a Law 90A violation of correct > procedure (see the Definition of "irregularity"), so may > attract a Procedural Penalty. > > (3) A warning is the mildest form of Procedural Penalty, > but suggesting that a PP for a later identical offence > may be more severe (for example, under some regulations > there is a fixed 6-imp PP for MI whether or not the MI > causes any damage). > > (4) Except for the special case of an individual event > (see Law 12C3) one shares partner's PP. Indeed, since in > this case it is a team match, then team-mates also share > the warning PP (see the Definition of "contestant"). > > What's the problem? > Well, assume that player B, who was given that warning for the "forget" of his partner A (see the other post, the warning was given for not remembering the system, not for MI), now plays with C, the team being five-handed and rotating partnerships. Now B or C forgets the system. B already has that warning.... Now B is somewhat concerned about the possibility that this warning will stay on _his_ record (as well as on his partner's) indefinitely, since the AC said so. (The wording is somewhat unclear, but could be read that way, IMO). Best regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 21 09:57:58 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:57:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revoke... late call [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A657506.8040601@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Rob Bosman: > > [snip] > >> Declarer explains his "odd" behaviour of waiving the penalty card >> by the fact that he had not realized that there had already been >> an established revoke - in his mind there was only a non- >> established revoke at hand with a possible penalty card that was >> of no use to him. >> >> The opponents however claim that declarer by waiving the penalty >> for the non established revoke has also lost his right to ask for >> application of the penalty for the established revoke. >> >> Has anyone an idea how to handle this? > > Law 10B: > > "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a > rectification made by the players without his instructions." > > Rob Bosnan: > >> In my younger years as a TD I used to tell people that had made >> their own rules that they absolutely should continue to do so, >> but should not expect any interference from me when all of a >> sudden they felt things went not their way as they might have >> under the WBF laws - but I was told that this is not the right >> approach... > > Richard Hills; > > Welcome to blml, Rob. Do you have any cats? Rob has been here for a long time, Richard, he just doesn't post much. It's more a case of "welcome back". > > The recovering blmler John (MadDog) Probst would have sympathy > for your youthful approach as a TD, since like me MadDog has an > eternally youthful enthusiastic approach to bridge. > > However, the way a Director should exercise her discretion under > Law 10B is delineated by the first two sentences of Law 84D: > > "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- > offending side. He seeks to restore equity." More to the point: whether declarer waives a penalty card or not has no bearing on former dummy's rights to call the TD after play ended (even before, as someone else had drawn attention to the irregularity) and let the TD rule on the established revoke. Best regards Matthias > > > 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 petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Jul 21 10:12:49 2009 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:12:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A warning In-Reply-To: <1MT8xj-0nV4r20@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> References: <1MT8xj-0nV4r20@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:36:31 +0200, Peter Eidt wrote: > FWIW a team match behind screens (premier league). > On one side of the screen player A explains one of his > own bids correctly, while on the other side player B > gives MI about this bid. In consequence the opposing > side does not find their best spot. They claim damage. > The TD said NO, the AC says Yes. > Furthermore the AC gives a warning to pair AB for > giving MI (lets say in a rather simple 1st-round-situation). > > Now player A questiones the consequences of this > warning. First, he did nothing wrong and second, he > wants to know, whether this warning has (may have) > any consequences for his future bridge carreer. > > Assume no / your own NBO regulations. > The contestant is the team (see Definitions), so the warning applies to the whole team - for that event only, as the AC has no powers beyond the current contest. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 10:17:10 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:17:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revoke... late call In-Reply-To: <000601ca09d3$84741530$8d5c3f90$@nl> References: <000601ca09d3$84741530$8d5c3f90$@nl> Message-ID: 2009/7/21 Rob Bosman : > Declarer plays 3 NT, holding AK987 in spades with 103 in dummy. The J > appears with LHO at the second round of spades, RHO wins the third round of > spades with the Q whilst LHO discards a diamond. A few tricks later declarer > regains the lead and plays the 8 of spades, nobody is following suit. At the > last spade RHO first discards a heart (as he did on the previous one), but > now discovers he still holds the 6 of spades and replaces the heart by his > last spade. No TD is called and declarer waives the penalty card. Declarer > makes nine tricks. After play ceases and it becomes clear to all players > that declarer has not reached to the best possible result, the former dummy > calls for the TD and explains that there has been an established revoke on > the fourth spade round. > > > > Declarer explains his ?odd? behaviour of waiving the penalty card by the > fact that he had not realized that there had already been an established > revoke ?in his mind there was only a non-established revoke at hand with a > possible penalty card that was of no use to him. > > > > The opponents however claim that declarer by waiving the penalty for the non > established revoke has also lost his right to ask for application of the > penalty for the established revoke. >From L64B4 and L64B5 it seems clear that the first revoke should be rectified, since attention was drawn to it in time for this. I fail to see how declarer waiving the penalty card for a following corrected suit in any way affects this. Not calling the director at that time in no way can affect the rectification for the first revoke, since the card that legally should have been played to the first revoke trick has now been played. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > > Has anyone an idea how to handle this? In my younger years as a TD I used to > tell people that had made their own rules that they absolutely should > continue to do so, but should not expect any interference from me when all > of a sudden they felt things went not their way as they might have under the > WBF laws ? but I was told that this is not the right approach... > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Rob > > > > Rob Bosman > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 21 11:00:49 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:00:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] revoke... late call References: <000601ca09d3$84741530$8d5c3f90$@nl> Message-ID: <002c01ca09e1$c1804120$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott You're sitting west, holding AJxx AKxxx xx xx. South opens 1 Club, alerted as normally three or more, but two cards possible when holding 4-4-3-2. You bid 2 Clubs, meant as majors, but not alerted by your partner. Your agreement is indeed that 2 Clubs over an artificial 1 Club is natural, however you haven't made a clear agreement about the 'Dutch doubleton' when it is really only two cards with three diamonds and 4-4 majors whether to treat that as natural or artificial. You are not certain whether your partner is misinterpreting your bid, or that he merely has forgotten to alert. North doubles and your partner passes, as does South who actually holds AKQxx of clubs. Your agreement on responses to your (doubled) Michaels cuebid are: pass shows good clubs with no support in any major, whilst two diamonds would require you to bid your best suit. The question now is: are you allowed to run? The TD said you're not since when playing with screens you would not have known that your partner has misinterpreted your bid and you would have him to expect to put 6 clubs on the table (with the likelihood that they will split 4-1 or even 5-0). However, you did decide to run and to bid 2 Hearts, after which the opponents reach 3NT. That is one off thanks to your spade holding that the opponent was not really expecting, but that was guessed by your partner after he saw that you did not have any clubs at all. The TD adjusted the score to 2Cl x-5, 1100 to NS. >From the TD perspective awarding -1100 to EW (2 Clubs doubled -5) seems ok, but should NS be awarded with the same score, or should more equity be applied by awarding them a part score in clubs, being the only reasonable place for them to be, i.e. +130? That option was heavily discussed in the appeals committee, but it was decided ultimately to support the TD's decision. Thanks! Rob Rob Bosman +31 644 912 363 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090721/20a7dfed/attachment.html From blml at bridgescore.de Tue Jul 21 11:30:43 2009 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:30:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from a non alert... In-Reply-To: <001c01ca09e4$362c3220$a2849660$@nl> References: <001c01ca09e4$362c3220$a2849660$@nl> Message-ID: <4A658AC3.6080800@bridgescore.de> Hi Rob, since +1100 would have been the score without the infraction by West, I cannot see why N/S should not be entitled to get it. Regards, Christian Rob Bosman schrieb: > You?re sitting west, holding AJxx AKxxx xx xx. South opens 1 Club, > alerted as normally three or more, but two cards possible when holding > 4-4-3-2. You bid 2 Clubs, meant as majors, but not alerted by your > partner. Your agreement is indeed that 2 Clubs over an artificial 1 Club > is natural, however you haven?t made a clear agreement about the ?Dutch > doubleton? when it is really only two cards with three diamonds and 4-4 > majors whether to treat that as natural or artificial. You are not > certain whether your partner is misinterpreting your bid, or that he > merely has forgotten to alert. North doubles and your partner passes, as > does South who actually holds AKQxx of clubs. > > Your agreement on responses to your (doubled) Michaels cuebid are: pass > shows good clubs with no support in any major, whilst two diamonds would > require you to bid your best suit. > > The question now is: are you allowed to run? The TD said you?re not > since when playing with screens you would not have known that your > partner has misinterpreted your bid and you would have him to expect to > put 6 clubs on the table (with the likelihood that they will split 4-1 > or even 5-0). > > However, you did decide to run and to bid 2 Hearts, after which the > opponents reach 3NT. That is one off thanks to your spade holding that > the opponent was not really expecting, but that was guessed by your > partner after he saw that you did not have any clubs at all. The TD > adjusted the score to 2Cl x-5, 1100 to NS. > > From the TD perspective awarding -1100 to EW (2 Clubs doubled -5) seems > ok, but should NS be awarded with the same score, or should more equity > be applied by awarding them a part score in clubs, being the only > reasonable place for them to be, i.e. +130? That option was heavily > discussed in the appeals committee, but it was decided ultimately to > support the TD?s decision. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Rob > > > > Rob Bosman > > +31 644 912 363 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 21 11:42:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:42:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A warning References: <1MT8xj-0nV4r20@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003501ca09e7$982976b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A warning > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:36:31 +0200, Peter Eidt > wrote: > >> FWIW a team match behind screens (premier league). >> On one side of the screen player A explains one of his >> own bids correctly, while on the other side player B >> gives MI about this bid. In consequence the opposing >> side does not find their best spot. They claim damage. >> The TD said NO, the AC says Yes. >> Furthermore the AC gives a warning to pair AB for >> giving MI (lets say in a rather simple 1st-round-situation). >> >> Now player A questiones the consequences of this >> warning. First, he did nothing wrong and second, he >> wants to know, whether this warning has (may have) >> any consequences for his future bridge carreer. >> >> Assume no / your own NBO regulations. >> > > The contestant is the team (see Definitions), so the > warning applies to the whole team - for that event only, > as the AC has no powers beyond the current contest. > > Regards, > Petrus > -- +=+ I would want to know about the regulation under which the warning is given if it is to be regarded as an official warning. The Director or the AC may give an informal warning to the effect that a repetition is likely to trigger a procedural penalty. I do not recall anything in the Laws that provides for warnings. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 21 11:59:29 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:59:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <007b01ca0712$edaaf410$c900dc30$@no> References: <200907081854.n68IshWa003100@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A58F87B.5090901@nhcc.net> <4A59A3E4.1000403@skynet.be> <007b01ca0712$edaaf410$c900dc30$@no> Message-ID: <4A659181.6000607@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Already knowing that 4NT asks for minors doesn't automatically imply that 5D > shows diamonds, and a follow-up question on what the answer bid shows is > perfectly legal. > Of course the question is perfectly legal, but Steve said it should be illegal because of the reason for asking. If you ask because you want to make certain that they are not using some exotic system, that is OK; but if the reason is that you want to find out if 4NT is Blackwood after all, that is (according to Steve, and I agree) not OK. Now Sven touches on a very good reason why the question should in fact be allowed - after all, that is one of the fundamentals of our game. So, and that was my point, in order for the question to remain allowed, AND the reason for asking (exploring a mistake) to be taken away, the responder should be allowed to mask the mistake by, in effect, lying about his actual system. This way we get the best of both worlds: Steve sees the illegal question dissapear (when the answer won't teach you anything about possible mistake, the question serves no purpose any more); and Sven sees the question itself remain. Both of you should be happy with my solution. Herman. > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 21 13:00:50 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:00:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revoke... late call In-Reply-To: <000601ca09d3$84741530$8d5c3f90$@nl> References: <000601ca09d3$84741530$8d5c3f90$@nl> Message-ID: <4A659FE2.9020000@skynet.be> I think there can be no problem here. After all, the revoke and the penalty card are two distinct infractions, and it is quite possible to waive the penalty for one, while retaining the right to have the other infraction ruled upon. Or maybe I'm not seeing everything clear enough. If this is from the tournament I met Rob at, this weekend, waiving of penalties was a very common thing to do. Herman. Rob Bosman wrote: > Declarer plays 3 NT, holding AK987 in spades with 103 in dummy. The J > appears with LHO at the second round of spades, RHO wins the third round > of spades with the Q whilst LHO discards a diamond. A few tricks later > declarer regains the lead and plays the 8 of spades, nobody is following > suit. At the last spade RHO first discards a heart (as he did on the > previous one), but now discovers he still holds the 6 of spades and > replaces the heart by his last spade. No TD is called and declarer > waives the penalty card. Declarer makes nine tricks. After play ceases > and it becomes clear to all players that declarer has not reached to the > best possible result, the former dummy calls for the TD and explains > that there has been an established revoke on the fourth spade round. > > > > Declarer explains his ?odd? behaviour of waiving the penalty card by the > fact that he had not realized that there had already been an established > revoke ?in his mind there was only a non-established revoke at hand with > a possible penalty card that was of no use to him. > > > > The opponents however claim that declarer by waiving the penalty for the > non established revoke has also lost his right to ask for application of > the penalty for the established revoke. > > > > Has anyone an idea how to handle this? In my younger years as a TD I > used to tell people that had made their own rules that they absolutely > should continue to do so, but should not expect any interference from me > when all of a sudden they felt things went not their way as they might > have under the WBF laws ? but I was told that this is not the right > approach... > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Rob > > > > Rob Bosman > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 21 13:09:11 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:09:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <4A659181.6000607@skynet.be> References: <200907081854.n68IshWa003100@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A58F87B.5090901@nhcc.net> <4A59A3E4.1000403@skynet.be> <007b01ca0712$edaaf410$c900dc30$@no> <4A659181.6000607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201ca09f3$ad4d2ee0$07e78ca0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Already knowing that 4NT asks for minors doesn't automatically imply that 5D > > shows diamonds, and a follow-up question on what the answer bid shows is > > perfectly legal. > > > > Of course the question is perfectly legal, but Steve said it should be > illegal because of the reason for asking. > If you ask because you want to make certain that they are not using some > exotic system, that is OK; but if the reason is that you want to find > out if 4NT is Blackwood after all, that is (according to Steve, and I > agree) not OK. The only reason for a question to be illegal is if the purpose of it is to communicate some information to partner. However, partner must carefully avoid using any UI he may have received as a consequence of the question. > > Now Sven touches on a very good reason why the question should in fact > be allowed - after all, that is one of the fundamentals of our game. > > So, and that was my point, in order for the question to remain allowed, > AND the reason for asking (exploring a mistake) to be taken away, the > responder should be allowed to mask the mistake by, in effect, lying > about his actual system. This sounds suspiciously like the infamous DwS, a matter which I have no desire to discuss, and which I believe has been definitely classified as illegal. Whatever questions are asked and whatever explanations are given a player is at all times entitled to a true description of opponents' agreements but not necessarily to information about the actual cards held by an opponent (primarily relevant when a call for whatever reason does not conform to agreements). A player that realizes he or his partner has given an incorrect description of their agreements may never try to conceal this error by deliberately giving another incorrect description. This would in case be a grave violation of Law 72B3. > > This way we get the best of both worlds: > Steve sees the illegal question dissapear (when the answer won't teach > you anything about possible mistake, the question serves no purpose any > more); Which "illegal" question? > and Sven sees the question itself remain. > > Both of you should be happy with my solution. Definitely not. Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 21 14:43:46 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:43:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A warning In-Reply-To: <003501ca09e7$982976b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <1MT8xj-0nV4r20@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <003501ca09e7$982976b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A65B802.70507@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: > > >> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:36:31 +0200, Peter Eidt >> wrote: >> >>> FWIW a team match behind screens (premier league). >>> On one side of the screen player A explains one of his >>> own bids correctly, while on the other side player B >>> gives MI about this bid. In consequence the opposing >>> side does not find their best spot. They claim damage. >>> The TD said NO, the AC says Yes. >>> Furthermore the AC gives a warning to pair AB for >>> giving MI (lets say in a rather simple 1st-round-situation). >>> >>> Now player A questiones the consequences of this >>> warning. First, he did nothing wrong and second, he >>> wants to know, whether this warning has (may have) >>> any consequences for his future bridge carreer. >>> >>> Assume no / your own NBO regulations. >>> >> The contestant is the team (see Definitions), so the >> warning applies to the whole team - for that event only, >> as the AC has no powers beyond the current contest. >> >> Regards, >> Petrus >> -- > +=+ I would want to know about the regulation under > which the warning is given if it is to be regarded as an > official warning. The Director or the AC may give an > informal warning to the effect that a repetition is likely > to trigger a procedural penalty. > I do not recall anything in the Laws that provides > for warnings. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The German regulations mention the least severe form of _disciplinary_ "penalty", the "Verwarnung" (not sure how to translate best, Collins gives caution, warning), but the regulations are silent on the matter of procedural penalties (but see slow play etc). A warning does not have to be brought to the notice of our NBO, more severe disciplinary penalties do. Slow play, late arrival etc may earn you a warning, too. If you have been cautioned for late arrival (up to 5 minutes, more than 5 incurs a penalty on first violation) you will be fined MP or VP if you show up late again, without those "free" 5 minutes. As far as I can see from the information I have (which may get more precise, I have asked for additional input) the AC wanted to hand the pair in question (who are not habitual offenders) a "penalty" on top of the rectification. They seem to have drawn the conclusion from the regulation about time limits that such warnings "carry over" during the tournament (league play), so that the next violation would lead to a VP fine, the warning as weakest possibility having already been used. If any additional information reaches me I will let BLML know. Best regards Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 21 16:14:43 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:14:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:34:54 -0400, wrote: > > Saint Patrick's Day no more we'll keep, his colour can't be seen, > For there's a cruel law agin the wearin' o' the Green. > > Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage > > "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been > aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the > non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue > (if not completed). 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*. > * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass." > > Robert Frick: > >> Partner probably has better than a 50% chance of guessing right, and >> declarer probably has a better than 50% chance of guessing right. So >> Law 23 probably doesn't apply as I normally understand it. Is it >> supposed to wipe out any rub-of-the-green luck from any irregularity? > > Richard Hills: > > Although rub-of-the-green has been extensively discussed on blml in the > past (most amusingly by David Burn in a 28th March 2008 post), it seems > that the concept of rub-of-the-green as it applies to the Laws of > Duplicate Bridge is still not yet fully understood by all blmlers. > > Suppose that you pick up a balanced 17 hcp and decide to start the > auction with a Standard Hogwartsian 1NT opening bid. Alas, due to your > wits being muddled with a love potion, you have misread the duplicate > board and it was actually partner who was entitled to be dealer. > > As usual LHO declines their Law 29A option to accept your OBOOT, so as > usual Law 31B requires you to guess the final contract, since partner is > now compelled to pass for the entire auction. Since partner's average > holding will be 11 hcp, your guess at a replacement call is bidding 3NT. > > (a) Alas, partner holds only 6 hcp. > (b) However, four finesses work, so you score a cold top for +600 while > the rest of the field is scoring +150 in 1NT. > > While the Law 23 footnote "partner's enforced pass" is applicable, the > mandatory Law 23 criterion "could have been aware at the time of his > irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side" is Not > applicable, so the +600 in 3NT is classified as a rub-of-the-green non- > infraction. > > However... > > In Bob's original case, RHO "could have been aware" that LHO has a 100% > history of succumbing to memory squeezes, so "at the time of his > irregularity" RHO could have calculated that by playing out of turn RHO > "could well damage the non-offending side" by reducing a 100% memory > squeeze to a 50% Law 57A guess by declarer. > > Note that Law 23 states "aware ... could well damage", not "aware ... > will damage", so even if RHO's calculations of the percentages are a > bit askew Law 23 still applies to RHO's Awareness Of Potential Damage. > > Note also that ultimately it is the Director who "considers" whether > RHO's suspiciously timed POOT meant that "the offending side has gained > an advantage through the irregularity" under Law 23, or whether instead > the Director "considers" that declarer has merely rub-of-the-green > misguessed under Law 57A. This takes directing to a new level. A player makes a insufficient bid, which is then accepted. It never crossed my mind to apply Law 23! Same thing for any lead out of turn. And I am thinking that L23 actually rule out all rub-of-the-green results. We are searching for the natural language meaning of "well damage". Right? In fact, I know that if I open 1NT when it is my partner's turn to bid, that I will have to guess the contract and this might damage the opponents in the long run if they are unlucky. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 21 17:26:59 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:26:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601ca0a17$b1277880$13766980$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage > > > > "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been > > aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the > > non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue > > (if not completed). 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*. > > * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass." > > This takes directing to a new level. A player makes a insufficient bid, > which is then accepted. It never crossed my mind to apply Law 23! Same > thing for any lead out of turn. > > And I am thinking that L23 actually rule out all rub-of-the-green results. > We are searching for the natural language meaning of "well damage". Right? An offending player could hardly "be aware at the time of his irregularity" of a true "rub of the green" damage to opponents. Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 21 17:49:02 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:49:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <001201ca09f3$ad4d2ee0$07e78ca0$@no> References: <200907081854.n68IshWa003100@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A58F87B.5090901@nhcc.net> <4A59A3E4.1000403@skynet.be> <007b01ca0712$edaaf410$c900dc30$@no> <4A659181.6000607@skynet.be> <001201ca09f3$ad4d2ee0$07e78ca0$@no> Message-ID: <4A65E36E.6020603@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> Already knowing that 4NT asks for minors doesn't automatically imply > that 5D >>> shows diamonds, and a follow-up question on what the answer bid shows is >>> perfectly legal. >>> >> Of course the question is perfectly legal, but Steve said it should be >> illegal because of the reason for asking. >> If you ask because you want to make certain that they are not using some >> exotic system, that is OK; but if the reason is that you want to find >> out if 4NT is Blackwood after all, that is (according to Steve, and I >> agree) not OK. > > The only reason for a question to be illegal is if the purpose of it is to > communicate some information to partner. Well, this was Steve's suggestion - that asking a question for the reason of discovering a misunderstanding ought to be illegal. After all, one is not entitled to the knowledge that opponents are having a misunderstanding. So asking specifically for that purpose should be illegal. And of course this is not the way the laws are formulated. In fact, I don't agree that asking a question should ever be illegal. But I do agree with Steve that this purpose should not be possible. The only solution therefore is to make possible the giving of an answer that does not reveal the misunderstanding. > However, partner must carefully avoid using any UI he may have received as a > consequence of the question. > Well, the purpose of the question is of no value to partner. Tha answer (revealing the misunderstanding) would be, and that would bu AI. >> Now Sven touches on a very good reason why the question should in fact >> be allowed - after all, that is one of the fundamentals of our game. >> >> So, and that was my point, in order for the question to remain allowed, >> AND the reason for asking (exploring a mistake) to be taken away, the >> responder should be allowed to mask the mistake by, in effect, lying >> about his actual system. > > This sounds suspiciously like the infamous DwS, a matter which I have no > desire to discuss, and which I believe has been definitely classified as > illegal. > You believe wrongly. Your desires are of no interest to me. And yes, this is the dWs. And it is one of the main reasons why this ought to be looked at in more detail. Tell me, Sven, if you consider the following trick acceptable: West makes a call, which your partner (North) asks to explain. East explains, but you know West and you know that he usually plays something different than what East is telling you. Your partner calls, and so does East. Now this call has a very clear meaning (something like a 5Di over 4NT showing minors), but you suspect it is something different. Now you ask West what the bid means (when that meaning is very clear). According to the DWS, he will say "natural". But in your interpretation of the laws, West is now obliged to reveal to East that he had a different idea. Do you consider that tactic laudable - or do you prefer to play bridge in some other way? > Whatever questions are asked and whatever explanations are given a player is > at all times entitled to a true description of opponents' agreements but not > necessarily to information about the actual cards held by an opponent > (primarily relevant when a call for whatever reason does not conform to > agreements). > "Entitled". This word clearly shows what the lawmakers intended. The opponents are "entitled" to something. When they don't get it, they get a redress. Opponents are not entitled to the knowledge that a pair are having a bidding misunderstanding. The question as stated above is designed to get that information, and in your interpretation of the law, it will succeed. That is not how I want to play bridge. > A player that realizes he or his partner has given an incorrect description > of their agreements may never try to conceal this error by deliberately > giving another incorrect description. This would in case be a grave > violation of Law 72B3. > Who said anything about concealing? The player will reveal the misunderstanding at the appropriate time. Please note that L75B actually instructs a player to conceal (for the time being) an infraction. >> This way we get the best of both worlds: >> Steve sees the illegal question dissapear (when the answer won't teach >> you anything about possible mistake, the question serves no purpose any >> more); > > Which "illegal" question? > The question that Steve thinks ought to be illegal. >> and Sven sees the question itself remain. >> >> Both of you should be happy with my solution. > > Definitely not. > I said "should" not "will". I believe you should be happy with the solution: contrary to Steve, it allows the question to be asked. > Sven > Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 21 18:25:19 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:25:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Taking Players Away from the Table In-Reply-To: <1EF2F67A8F9546BFA01BA2F44FA75C1B@MARVLAPTOP> References: <1EF2F67A8F9546BFA01BA2F44FA75C1B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:05:03 -0400, Marvin L French wrote: > The ACBL TDs have a policy of taking players away from the table in > MI cases, even when it's too late for a player to change the last > call. Are you suggesting one procedure when it is not too late for a player to change a last call and a different procedure when it is too late? > The standard question is, "Would you have done anything > different in the auction in the absence of the misinformation?" > > Wrong question, of course. It should be, "Would you have > *considered* doing anything different in the absence of the > misinformation?" "considered" is not a good word, as it is ambiguous in normal conversation. (some thought versus seriously entertained -- if your reaction to bidding 3S was "ew, no way", did you consider 3S or not?) But I still don't understand. There is damage only when the player would have made a different bid. So what is wrong with the first question? > > Since there can be no change of call, this procedure wastes valuable > playing time. The question can be asked later, if necessary (and > usually there is no evidence of damage, making the answer moot). It is almost always to the player's benefit to say that they would have done something different, honest answer or not. There is, however, some small cost to being dishonest -- the director can eventually notice that you always say you would have done something different and you frequently say that with hands where the director thinks those are bad bids. If you ask after the hand is over, the player can balance that small cost against a certainy of gain. If you ask after the bidding, then the expected gain is significantly smaller, hence there is more incentive to be honest. And if a player is still always dishonest, it is much easier to sense that if you ask after the bidding, because you collect a lot of good data. > > It is also unfair to force a player to give a spur-of-the moment > answer to a hypothetical question, interfering with other concerns > that may be occupying the player's mind. Even after the opening bid is faced, the auction is still on the player's minds, which is why they noticed that the dummy didn't have his bid. This is, IMO, the ideal time to ask them. If you wait until after the hand, they have to reconstruct the entire auction, which nonexpert players might find very difficult. The play of the hand is not yet on their mind. I agree that if the MI comes up in the middle of the hand, your argument here is on target and this wouldn't be a good time to be asking players if they would have bid something different. > > The TDs justify this procedure by saying that it is the best > opportunity to get good information before it is tainted by thinking > time. One confessed that the main reason is to catch a player in a > self-damaging statement that the TD would not have considered. I think it is true that players might, once they see the results, invent bids they otherwise wouldn't have thought of. I wouldn't rank this as the major reason for asking players what they would have done just after the faced opening lead. I am not sure what self-damaging statement can occur. Except once a player said she would have bid 4D instead of her final pass, I explained that she actually could bid 4Di instead of her final pass, and so then she did. 4Di worked out horribly. It is possible that her saying that she would bid 4Di was not an honest answer which she then felt compelled to stand behind. If so, I do not feel sorry for her. > > I ask BLML for opinions on this matter. Steve Willner posted about the same thing as you on rec.games.bridge; it's at the end of http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/browse_thread/thread/f6b4f3d8fb3100c6/53ba6f7647f100a3?hl=en& So you get support there, unless he was unexpectedly swayed by my reply. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jul 21 18:28:04 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:28:04 -0700 Subject: [BLML] A warning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: > > Richard Hills: > > (1) Giving MI is an infraction, whether or not it causes > damage. > > (2) An infraction is a Law 90A violation of correct > procedure (see the Definition of "irregularity"), so may > attract a Procedural Penalty. Richard heartily disagrees with my contention that PPs are not intended for this purpose. He has read my article on the subject, published on my web site under Bridge Laws and Regulations. I was astounded that anyone could read that and still maintain that PPs may be used to punish offenders for *any* irregularity. "Procedure" in L90 refers to procedures that are peculiar to the game of Duplicate Bridge, such as the examples given in L90B. These begin with a sentence that ends "(but the offenses are not limited to these)" When I first read that, common sense told me that offenses of a different nature could not be included. Any such list ends with "and the like," either explicitly stated or normally understood. How delighted I was that attorney Allan Falk on the ACBL LC said that this was a well-known legal principle (*ejusdem generis*, of the same kind). Saying that I was correct, he forwarded this opinion to the rest of the LC, to whom my article on PPs had been distributed by e-mail. When I asked Co-chairman Chip Martel why the LC had not responded to my submittal, he advised me that in future I should make recommendations shorter if I expected them to be considered. I guess those people are awful busy. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 21 18:36:48 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:36:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601ca0a17$b1277880$13766980$@no> References: <000601ca0a17$b1277880$13766980$@no> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:26:59 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> > Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage >> > >> > "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been >> > aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the >> > non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue >> > (if not completed). 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*. >> > * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass." > >> >> This takes directing to a new level. A player makes a insufficient bid, >> which is then accepted. It never crossed my mind to apply Law 23! Same >> thing for any lead out of turn. >> >> And I am thinking that L23 actually rule out all rub-of-the-green >> results. >> We are searching for the natural language meaning of "well damage". >> Right? > > An offending player could hardly "be aware at the time of his > irregularity" > of a true "rub of the green" damage to opponents. > > Regards Sven Right, they don't know that there *will* be damage. But for L23 to kick in, the player has to be aware only that the irregularity *could* damage the non-offending side. For me, I know that almost any irregularity I make could damage the offending side. In this case, it would be obvious to me that the opponents could be severely damaged by my out-of-turn opening 1NT. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 21 19:01:08 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:01:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <4A65E36E.6020603@skynet.be> References: <200907081854.n68IshWa003100@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A58F87B.5090901@nhcc.net> <4A59A3E4.1000403@skynet.be> <007b01ca0712$edaaf410$c900dc30$@no> <4A659181.6000607@skynet.be> <001201ca09f3$ad4d2ee0$07e78ca0$@no> <4A65E36E.6020603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01ca0a24$d7d6a7f0$8783f7d0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > > The only reason for a question to be illegal is if the purpose of it is to > > communicate some information to partner. > > Well, this was Steve's suggestion - that asking a question for the > reason of discovering a misunderstanding ought to be illegal. I see absolutely no reason for such a rule and I cannot see any situation where a question is asked for the purpose of revealing a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding will of course be revealed when there is a discrepancy between answers from the two partners, but I shall always assume that the primary purpose of asking such questions in case is the desire to have the true agreements revealed, not to have the misunderstanding as such revealed. > After all, one is not entitled to the knowledge that opponents are > having a misunderstanding. > So asking specifically for that purpose should be illegal. If I doubt a statement from one of my opponents I may certainly ask the other opponent at the proper time about the agreements on his partner's calls. If the two statements are incompatible I am fully entitled to deduce (at my own risk) that they have a misunderstanding and I am protected by the laws if I am damaged by misinformation. > > And of course this is not the way the laws are formulated. And that is of course intentional. > In fact, I don't agree that asking a question should ever be illegal. > But I do agree with Steve that this purpose should not be possible. HUH? > The only solution therefore is to make possible the giving of an answer > that does not reveal the misunderstanding. WHY? > > > However, partner must carefully avoid using any UI he may have received as a > > consequence of the question. Information given by opponents is not UI to either of you. Your question, and the fact that you asked it is of course UI to your partner. > > > > Well, the purpose of the question is of no value to partner. That depends. > The answer > (revealing the misunderstanding) would be, and that would be AI. Sure > > >> Now Sven touches on a very good reason why the question should in fact > >> be allowed - after all, that is one of the fundamentals of our game. > >> > >> So, and that was my point, in order for the question to remain allowed, > >> AND the reason for asking (exploring a mistake) to be taken away, the > >> responder should be allowed to mask the mistake by, in effect, lying > >> about his actual system. > > > > This sounds suspiciously like the infamous DwS, a matter which I have no > > desire to discuss, and which I believe has been definitely classified as > > illegal. > > > > You believe wrongly. > Your desires are of no interest to me. > And yes, this is the dWs. Thanks for the confirmation. > And it is one of the main reasons why this ought to be looked at in more > detail. As far as I understand it has been carefully looked at for at least twenty years and is definitely rejected as not acceptable. > > Tell me, Sven, if you consider the following trick acceptable: > West makes a call, which your partner (North) asks to explain. East > explains, but you know West and you know that he usually plays something > different than what East is telling you. Your partner calls, and so does > East. Now this call has a very clear meaning (something like a 5Di over > 4NT showing minors), but you suspect it is something different. Now you > ask West what the bid means (when that meaning is very clear). According > to the DWS, he will say "natural". But in your interpretation of the > laws, West is now obliged to reveal to East that he had a different idea. > > Do you consider that tactic laudable - or do you prefer to play bridge > in some other way? No comment. I have made my position absolutely clear on DwS and stand by it. > > > Whatever questions are asked and whatever explanations are given a player is > > at all times entitled to a true description of opponents' agreements but not > > necessarily to information about the actual cards held by an opponent > > (primarily relevant when a call for whatever reason does not conform to > > agreements). > > > > "Entitled". > This word clearly shows what the lawmakers intended. The opponents are > "entitled" to something. When they don't get it, they get a redress. > > Opponents are not entitled to the knowledge that a pair are having a > bidding misunderstanding. The question as stated above is designed to > get that information, and in your interpretation of the law, it will > succeed. That is not how I want to play bridge. > > > A player that realizes he or his partner has given an incorrect description > > of their agreements may never try to conceal this error by deliberately > > giving another incorrect description. This would in case be a grave > > violation of Law 72B3. > > > > Who said anything about concealing? The player will reveal the > misunderstanding at the appropriate time. Please note that L75B actually > instructs a player to conceal (for the time being) an infraction. But it doesn't override the duty a player has to give opponents correct information. If a player deliberately lies to opponents about agreements in order to conceal the fact that his partner has given misinformation is to me a clear and severe violation of law 72B3 even if he intends to reveal the misinformation at a later time. This has been discussed over and over again and I am as surprised as ever that you are completely unable to face the decisions by WBFLC on DwS. > > >> This way we get the best of both worlds: > >> Steve sees the illegal question dissapear (when the answer won't teach > >> you anything about possible mistake, the question serves no purpose any > >> more); > > > > Which "illegal" question? > > > > The question that Steve thinks ought to be illegal. That Steve thinks something ought to be illegal doesn't make it illegal. > > >> and Sven sees the question itself remain. > >> > >> Both of you should be happy with my solution. > > > > Definitely not. > > > > I said "should" not "will". And I still say "definitely not" To the extent that anything further from you with the slightest resemblance to DwS will make it directly to my shredder. Sven From blml at arcor.de Tue Jul 21 19:07:09 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:07:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] A warning In-Reply-To: <4A65711C.5040304@t-online.de> References: <4A65711C.5040304@t-online.de> <1MT8xj-0nV4r20@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <21532239.1248196029829.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > I would like to clarify some things. > > Peter Eidt schrieb: > > FWIW a team match behind screens (premier league). > > On one side of the screen player A explains one of his > > own bids correctly, while on the other side player B > > gives MI about this bid. In consequence the opposing > > side does not find their best spot. They claim damage. > > The TD said NO, the AC says Yes. > > Furthermore the AC gives a warning to pair AB for > > giving MI (lets say in a rather simple 1st-round-situation). > > They gave a warning (the least severe disciplinary penalty in the > applicable regulations) for "not knowing the system", not for the MI. > Now the player wonders whether they can hand out a disciplinary penalty > for a violation of procedure. The regulations do not list "warning" as a > possible consequence of a violation of procedure, neither does TFLB. The > regs list a warning as the first step of disciplinary penalties. It > carries no penalty, but further violations would carry increasingly > bigger penalties. > > > > > Now player A questiones the consequences of this > > warning. First, he did nothing wrong and second, he > > wants to know, whether this warning has (may have) > > any consequences for his future bridge carreer. > > The AC mentioned in its comment that this warning would lead to more > severe penalties in future cases. Now player A wonders how something his > partner did can have a consequence for him. The AC explicitly noted that > this procedural penalty applies to both players, so should player B > forget his system on some future occasion he would be handed a more > severe penalty, since he was given that warning when _his partner_ > forgot the system... He finds this somewhat grotesque ( as do I, by the > way). I do not consider this to be grotesque. Example scenario: Player A creates some system or convention and one way or another requests player B to play that with him. Of course player B is now more likely than player A to "forget" A's system, but I see no reason to consider to give A a free ride if B "forgets". Thomas Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 21 19:25:51 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:25:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000601ca0a17$b1277880$13766980$@no> Message-ID: <000e01ca0a28$4ca60a00$e5f21e00$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............. > > An offending player could hardly "be aware at the time of his > > irregularity" > > of a true "rub of the green" damage to opponents. > > > > Regards Sven > > Right, they don't know that there *will* be damage. But for L23 to kick > in, the player has to be aware only that the irregularity *could* damage > the non-offending side. For me, I know that almost any irregularity I make > could damage the offending side. In this case, it would be obvious to me > that the opponents could be severely damaged by my out-of-turn opening 1NT. I certainly do not require for Law 23 to kick in that the player "knows", and I never wrote anything to that effect. But I do require some direct connection between damage and the offender's irregularity rather than damage as a casual result from more extraordinary lie of the cards that could hardly be foreseen by the offender at the time of his irregularity. An example is the out-of-turn opening bid 1NT which is replaced by a chance bid of 3NT, a contract that would normally go down with the Dummy received, but which makes because of extremely fortunate lie of the cards. Another example is the same out-of-turn opening bid 1NT which is replaced by a chance bid of 3NT, but this time Dummy shows up with a solid hand to open 1NT himself and all the other tables in the field has reached 6NT. However, there is no way to win more than eleven tricks because of extremely unfortunate lie of cards. In both cases the "damage" to opponents is caused by "rub of the green" and could not have been foreseen by the offender at the time of his irregularity. Both results stand. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 21 20:47:47 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:47:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green In-Reply-To: References: <000601ca0a17$b1277880$13766980$@no> Message-ID: On Jul 21, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:26:59 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> >>> And I am thinking that L23 actually rule out all rub-of-the-green >>> results. >>> We are searching for the natural language meaning of "well damage". >>> Right? No. "Well damage" is a meaningless phrase unless your water source is broken. The phrase "could well damage" should be read as "could well cause damage", not as "could cause well damage". >> An offending player could hardly "be aware at the time of his >> irregularity" >> of a true "rub of the green" damage to opponents. > > Right, they don't know that there *will* be damage. But for L23 to > kick > in, the player has to be aware only that the irregularity *could* > damage > the non-offending side. For me, I know that almost any irregularity > I make > could damage the offending side. In this case, it would be obvious > to me > that the opponents could be severely damaged by my out-of-turn > opening 1NT. Not "could", which is equivalent to "might", but "could well", which is closer in meaning to "is likely to". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 21 20:48:23 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:48:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01ca0a28$4ca60a00$e5f21e00$@no> References: <000601ca0a17$b1277880$13766980$@no> <000e01ca0a28$4ca60a00$e5f21e00$@no> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:25:51 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............. >> > An offending player could hardly "be aware at the time of his >> > irregularity" >> > of a true "rub of the green" damage to opponents. >> > >> > Regards Sven >> >> Right, they don't know that there *will* be damage. But for L23 to kick >> in, the player has to be aware only that the irregularity *could* damage >> the non-offending side. For me, I know that almost any irregularity I >> make >> could damage the offending side. In this case, it would be obvious to me >> that the opponents could be severely damaged by my out-of-turn opening > 1NT. > > I certainly do not require for Law 23 to kick in that the player "knows", > and I never wrote anything to that effect. > > But I do require some direct connection between damage and the offender's > irregularity rather than damage as a casual result from more > extraordinary > lie of the cards that could hardly be foreseen by the offender at the > time > of his irregularity. > > An example is the out-of-turn opening bid 1NT which is replaced by a > chance > bid of 3NT, a contract that would normally go down with the Dummy > received, > but which makes because of extremely fortunate lie of the cards. > > Another example is the same out-of-turn opening bid 1NT which is > replaced by > a chance bid of 3NT, but this time Dummy shows up with a solid hand to > open > 1NT himself and all the other tables in the field has reached 6NT. > However, > there is no way to win more than eleven tricks because of extremely > unfortunate lie of cards. > > In both cases the "damage" to opponents is caused by "rub of the green" > and > could not have been foreseen by the offender at the time of his > irregularity. Both results stand. It seems like we can forsee the possibility of these events occurring. So the player can too, unless ignorance is an excuse for less competent players. Perhaps you mean not merely the *possibility* of these events occuring? Did you want to apply L23 only when "an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irrgularity *would be likely* to damage the non-offending side"? (old L72B1) More generally, players can gain from almost any irregularity, so it seems important to know how to use L25. Do we just use the old Law 82B1? Are you doing anything differently with the new laws? Bob > > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 21 20:53:44 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:53:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <000d01ca0a24$d7d6a7f0$8783f7d0$@no> References: <200907081854.n68IshWa003100@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A58F87B.5090901@nhcc.net> <4A59A3E4.1000403@skynet.be> <007b01ca0712$edaaf410$c900dc30$@no> <4A659181.6000607@skynet.be> <001201ca09f3$ad4d2ee0$07e78ca0$@no> <4A65E36E.6020603@skynet.be> <000d01ca0a24$d7d6a7f0$8783f7d0$@no> Message-ID: <4A660EB8.9080007@skynet.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................. >>> The only reason for a question to be illegal is if the purpose of it is > to >>> communicate some information to partner. >> Well, this was Steve's suggestion - that asking a question for the >> reason of discovering a misunderstanding ought to be illegal. > > I see absolutely no reason for such a rule and I cannot see any situation > where a question is asked for the purpose of revealing a misunderstanding. > Are you not being a bit blind then, Sven? You cannot see this situation? Yet it exists. And even if the questions are not asked for this precise purpose, the questions do get asked. And revealing the misunderstanding may be the unfortunate consequence. That leads to two problems: One is, that there might be people out there who are less blind than you, and who will see that asking questions in some situations may have interesting side benefits. They will start asking questions just in case. More questions, more time wasting, ... The second is, that there are people out there who, without any reason at all, ask lots of questions. Those people will, without even realising the possibility, gain an advantage over others who play bridge without a lot of questions. Me, I hardly ask any questions. I look at System Cards, sometimes, and I don't really care about intricate systems. I prefer to play a faster game (maybe less good, but that's my partner's problem, not yours). You might be one of those that ask many more questions. When those questions teach you something you are entitled to, I am OK with it. You spend more time at the table and less at the bar, and your result will be better. But when you learn something that you are NOT entitled to, I object. And that is what your interpretation leads to. By asking more questions, you do not just gain information that you are entitled to, but also information that you are not entitled to. It's almost as if you demand to have the right to ask the question "do you have the queen of hearts?", and to have them answer you as well. And no Sven, this is not a joke. What you are asking is basically "do you and your partner have the same idea about the meaning of that bid of 5Di?". That is knowledge to which you are not entitled. And yet you ask the question and demand an honest answer. Steve says he does not want you to be able to ask that question. I don't agree with that. You should be allowed to ask any question you want (and "what is 5Di?" is a perfecetly acceptable question). AS an alternative to Steve, I suggest you are allowed to ask the question, but I do not have to give you an honest answer. > A misunderstanding will of course be revealed when there is a discrepancy > between answers from the two partners, but I shall always assume that the > primary purpose of asking such questions in case is the desire to have the > true agreements revealed, not to have the misunderstanding as such revealed. > You may wel assume that this was the primary purpose, and you may even be right in 99% of the cases, but there is a secondary result, which I do not believe you should have as a result of a question, especially if it had a different primary purpose. >> After all, one is not entitled to the knowledge that opponents are >> having a misunderstanding. >> So asking specifically for that purpose should be illegal. > > If I doubt a statement from one of my opponents I may certainly ask the > other opponent at the proper time about the agreements on his partner's > calls. If the two statements are incompatible I am fully entitled to deduce > (at my own risk) that they have a misunderstanding and I am protected by the > laws if I am damaged by misinformation. > You see? You do it on purpose! >> And of course this is not the way the laws are formulated. > > And that is of course intentional. > >> In fact, I don't agree that asking a question should ever be illegal. >> But I do agree with Steve that this purpose should not be possible. > > HUH? > >> The only solution therefore is to make possible the giving of an answer >> that does not reveal the misunderstanding. > > WHY? Because you are not entitled to that knowledge. Certainly it should be within my rights to not have to answer questions about things you are not entitled to. If you ask me "do you have the queen of spades?" I believe it is within my rights to say "yes" or "no" regardles of whether those answers are ture or not. You are not entitled to the information, so I must be allowed to refuse to answer honestly. > >>> However, partner must carefully avoid using any UI he may have received > as a >>> consequence of the question. > > Information given by opponents is not UI to either of you. Your question, > and the fact that you asked it is of course UI to your partner. > >> Well, the purpose of the question is of no value to partner. > > That depends. > >> The answer >> (revealing the misunderstanding) would be, and that would be AI. > > Sure > >>>> Now Sven touches on a very good reason why the question should in fact >>>> be allowed - after all, that is one of the fundamentals of our game. >>>> >>>> So, and that was my point, in order for the question to remain allowed, >>>> AND the reason for asking (exploring a mistake) to be taken away, the >>>> responder should be allowed to mask the mistake by, in effect, lying >>>> about his actual system. >>> This sounds suspiciously like the infamous DwS, a matter which I have no >>> desire to discuss, and which I believe has been definitely classified as >>> illegal. >>> >> You believe wrongly. >> Your desires are of no interest to me. >> And yes, this is the dWs. > > Thanks for the confirmation. > >> And it is one of the main reasons why this ought to be looked at in more >> detail. > > As far as I understand it has been carefully looked at for at least twenty > years and is definitely rejected as not acceptable. > The only statement we had to that effect is by Grattan, who said he would lay down a text before the WBF. Which hasn't happened yet. >> Tell me, Sven, if you consider the following trick acceptable: >> West makes a call, which your partner (North) asks to explain. East >> explains, but you know West and you know that he usually plays something >> different than what East is telling you. Your partner calls, and so does >> East. Now this call has a very clear meaning (something like a 5Di over >> 4NT showing minors), but you suspect it is something different. Now you >> ask West what the bid means (when that meaning is very clear). According >> to the DWS, he will say "natural". But in your interpretation of the >> laws, West is now obliged to reveal to East that he had a different idea. >> >> Do you consider that tactic laudable - or do you prefer to play bridge >> in some other way? > > No comment. I have made my position absolutely clear on DwS and stand by it. > No comment. Easy. >>> Whatever questions are asked and whatever explanations are given a > player is >>> at all times entitled to a true description of opponents' agreements but > not >>> necessarily to information about the actual cards held by an opponent >>> (primarily relevant when a call for whatever reason does not conform to >>> agreements). >>> >> "Entitled". >> This word clearly shows what the lawmakers intended. The opponents are >> "entitled" to something. When they don't get it, they get a redress. >> >> Opponents are not entitled to the knowledge that a pair are having a >> bidding misunderstanding. The question as stated above is designed to >> get that information, and in your interpretation of the law, it will >> succeed. That is not how I want to play bridge. >> >>> A player that realizes he or his partner has given an incorrect > description >>> of their agreements may never try to conceal this error by deliberately >>> giving another incorrect description. This would in case be a grave >>> violation of Law 72B3. >>> >> Who said anything about concealing? The player will reveal the >> misunderstanding at the appropriate time. Please note that L75B actually >> instructs a player to conceal (for the time being) an infraction. > > But it doesn't override the duty a player has to give opponents correct > information. No it doesn't. And I have often stated that the MI has to be dealt with. > If a player deliberately lies to opponents about agreements in order to > conceal the fact that his partner has given misinformation is to me a clear > and severe violation of law 72B3 even if he intends to reveal the > misinformation at a later time. > Well, we have different ideas about which crime is worse: giving UI to partner or MI to opponents. That has been said 237 times already, so you don't need to say it a 238th time. It is a useless argument in this discussion. > This has been discussed over and over again and I am as surprised as ever > that you are completely unable to face the decisions by WBFLC on DwS. > If you tell me where they are written down I will have learnt something. >>>> This way we get the best of both worlds: >>>> Steve sees the illegal question dissapear (when the answer won't teach >>>> you anything about possible mistake, the question serves no purpose any >>>> more); >>> Which "illegal" question? >>> >> The question that Steve thinks ought to be illegal. > > That Steve thinks something ought to be illegal doesn't make it illegal. > >>>> and Sven sees the question itself remain. >>>> >>>> Both of you should be happy with my solution. >>> Definitely not. >>> >> I said "should" not "will". > > And I still say "definitely not" > Well, you cannot deny what I believe you should do. > To the extent that anything further from you with the slightest resemblance > to DwS will make it directly to my shredder. > > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 21 20:57:13 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:57:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green In-Reply-To: <000e01ca0a28$4ca60a00$e5f21e00$@no> References: <000601ca0a17$b1277880$13766980$@no> <000e01ca0a28$4ca60a00$e5f21e00$@no> Message-ID: On Jul 21, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............. >>> An offending player could hardly "be aware at the time of his >>> irregularity" >>> of a true "rub of the green" damage to opponents. >>> >>> Regards Sven >> >> Right, they don't know that there *will* be damage. But for L23 to >> kick >> in, the player has to be aware only that the irregularity *could* >> damage >> the non-offending side. For me, I know that almost any >> irregularity I make >> could damage the offending side. In this case, it would be obvious >> to me >> that the opponents could be severely damaged by my out-of-turn >> opening > 1NT. > > I certainly do not require for Law 23 to kick in that the player > "knows", > and I never wrote anything to that effect. > > But I do require some direct connection between damage and the > offender's > irregularity rather than damage as a casual result from more > extraordinary > lie of the cards that could hardly be foreseen by the offender at > the time > of his irregularity. > > An example is the out-of-turn opening bid 1NT which is replaced by > a chance > bid of 3NT, a contract that would normally go down with the Dummy > received, > but which makes because of extremely fortunate lie of the cards. > > Another example is the same out-of-turn opening bid 1NT which is > replaced by > a chance bid of 3NT, but this time Dummy shows up with a solid hand > to open > 1NT himself and all the other tables in the field has reached 6NT. > However, > there is no way to win more than eleven tricks because of extremely > unfortunate lie of cards. > > In both cases the "damage" to opponents is caused by "rub of the > green" and > could not have been foreseen by the offender at the time of his > irregularity. Both results stand. All quite correct. But lest anyone be misled, we need a third example: the same out-of-turn opening bid 1NT which is replaced by a chance bid of 3NT; this time the dummy has a perfecto, with 3NT being the best contract both single- and double-dummy, yielding the offenders a cold top when everyone else plays the inferior 4-4 major fit after a Stayman auction. This is as much "rub of the green" as Sven's examples; the OOT opener could no more have anticipated dummy's holding than he could have anticipated (in Sven's examples) an extremely fortunate or unfortunate lie of the cards after seeing dummy, and the result stands. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 21 21:27:17 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:27:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green In-Reply-To: References: <000601ca0a17$b1277880$13766980$@no> <000e01ca0a28$4ca60a00$e5f21e00$@no> Message-ID: <000f01ca0a39$4266afc0$c7340f40$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............. > All quite correct. But lest anyone be misled, we need a third > example: the same out-of-turn opening bid 1NT which is replaced by a > chance bid of 3NT; this time the dummy has a perfecto, with 3NT being > the best contract both single- and double-dummy, yielding the > offenders a cold top when everyone else plays the inferior 4-4 major > fit after a Stayman auction. This is as much "rub of the green" as > Sven's examples; the OOT opener could no more have anticipated > dummy's holding than he could have anticipated (in Sven's examples) > an extremely fortunate or unfortunate lie of the cards after seeing > dummy, and the result stands. Correct. My list of examples was never intended to be exhaustive! Regards Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Jul 21 21:37:57 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:37:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green In-Reply-To: <000f01ca0a39$4266afc0$c7340f40$@no> References: <000601ca0a17$b1277880$13766980$@no> <000e01ca0a28$4ca60a00$e5f21e00$@no> <000f01ca0a39$4266afc0$c7340f40$@no> Message-ID: <000c01ca0a3a$c077ad50$416707f0$@com> [SP] My list of examples was never intended to be exhaustive! [DALB] A world champion playing with a rank beginner opens 1NT out of turn and corrects to 3NT, knowing that even if there happen to be nine tricks in 3NT and ten in a major-suit fit, his partner might become declarer and misplay the hand. As it happens, there are nine tricks available in both 3NT and 4S, to which the champion's partner would have jumped over 1NT (as a rank beginner, he does not play transfers). Does this fall within the scope of "could well damage..."? David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 21 22:32:42 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:32:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green In-Reply-To: <000c01ca0a3a$c077ad50$416707f0$@com> References: <000601ca0a17$b1277880$13766980$@no> <000e01ca0a28$4ca60a00$e5f21e00$@no> <000f01ca0a39$4266afc0$c7340f40$@no> <000c01ca0a3a$c077ad50$416707f0$@com> Message-ID: <7941512B-E1BA-46BC-843C-6BFF2224EBC8@starpower.net> On Jul 21, 2009, at 3:37 PM, David Burn wrote: > A world champion playing with a rank beginner opens 1NT out of turn > and > corrects to 3NT, knowing that even if there happen to be nine > tricks in 3NT > and ten in a major-suit fit, his partner might become declarer and > misplay > the hand. As it happens, there are nine tricks available in both > 3NT and 4S, > to which the champion's partner would have jumped over 1NT (as a rank > beginner, he does not play transfers). > > Does this fall within the scope of "could well damage..."? It might. In a real life case, we would have to look just a bit beyond the lawyer-ese language of the law. "Could [he] have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the NOS"? Yes, but only if he was aware that he was committing an irregularity. The key question, then, is, Do we believe he might have known he was opening out of turn? Is there any reason to suspect he might have infracted deliberately? The lawyer-ese means we don't have to prove a L72B1 violation, but common sense requires us to suspect some possibility of one. It is neither right nor productive to invoke L23 when we are certain that there was no "awareness" on the part of the offender, could-have-shmould-have. The TD/AC should look at the evidence and make the call. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jul 21 22:38:34 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:38:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?=A781C5?= Message-ID: <4A66274A.6020305@aol.com> A friend (a TD who is not a member of blml) has asked me to post a question and get your opinions. It concerns ?81C5. As he (and I) understand it, this says in short form) that the TD can decide if he waives a request that there be no rectification or can ignore it (in his discretion). He feels that this dangerous, at least at lower levels with less experienced or proficient TDs. He gives, as a theoretical example: Let us assume a revoke occurs on bd. X at each table on which it is played. The revoke is not relevant but the one trick penalty still applies. The non-offending side asks that the penalty (rectification) be waived at each table. At some tables the TD accepts this request, at others he (another TD) doesn't. Thus at some tables the non-offending side gets one trick more than at other tables, due to the "discretion" of the TD. My friend asks for your opinions. Ciao, JE From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 21 23:16:36 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:16:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A warning In-Reply-To: <21532239.1248196029829.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <4A65711C.5040304@t-online.de> <1MT8xj-0nV4r20@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <21532239.1248196029829.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A663034.1070606@t-online.de> Thomas Dehn schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> The AC mentioned in its comment that this warning would lead to more >> severe penalties in future cases. Now player A wonders how something his >> partner did can have a consequence for him. The AC explicitly noted that >> this procedural penalty applies to both players, so should player B >> forget his system on some future occasion he would be handed a more >> severe penalty, since he was given that warning when _his partner_ >> forgot the system... He finds this somewhat grotesque ( as do I, by the >> way). > > I do not consider this to be grotesque. > > Example scenario: Player A creates some system or convention > and one way or another requests player B to play that with him. > Of course player B is now more likely than player A to > "forget" A's system, but I see no reason to consider > to give A a free ride if B "forgets". So you say that if A invents something which B forgets, then if C invents something which C (playing with A) himself forgets, then A "deserves" an increased penalty, because someone who is not even at the table has forgotten something entirely different last weekend? And C deserves an increased penalty because he plays with someone whose partner in the previous match has forgotten the system? Is there an emoticon (without resorting toHTML or similar) for shaking one's head? Best regards Matthias P.S. in case someone didn't notice: I find the idea of handing out penalties for "forgets" absolutely distasteful. Bridge players are human, they occasionally err. If misinformation hurts the NOS the TD knows what to do. > > > > Thomas > > Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! > (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") > JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 22 00:15:44 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:15:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green References: <000601ca0a17$b1277880$13766980$@no> <000e01ca0a28$4ca60a00$e5f21e00$@no> <000f01ca0a39$4266afc0$c7340f40$@no><000c01ca0a3a$c077ad50$416707f0$@com> <7941512B-E1BA-46BC-843C-6BFF2224EBC8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001a01ca0a51$738427f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green >> "Could [he] have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this > could well damage the NOS"? > > Yes, but only if he was aware that he was committing an irregularity. > > The key question, then, is, Do we believe he might have known he was > opening out of turn? Is there any reason to suspect he might have > infracted deliberately? The lawyer-ese means we don't have to prove > a L72B1 violation, but common sense requires us to suspect some > possibility of one. It is neither right nor productive to invoke L23 > when we are certain that there was no "awareness" on the part of the > offender, could-have-shmould-have. The TD/AC should look at the > evidence and make the call. > +=+ D'ye know Eric, I am not so sure that he needs to know he is committing an irregularity. I think it suffices that it is one. It needs to be merely possible that he could have been aware that in seizing the contract to himself he is depriving opponents of whatever opportunities exist that partner would go light while he will not. Law 23 has that interesting phrase 'at the time of'' which, to my mind, puts a gap between Law 23 and any requirement that the irregularity be conscious or purposeful. Now I am asking myself whether the Director in awarding an adjusted score should weight it according to his judgement of the probabilities of the partner making the contract or going down. (This not for you, Eric!) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 22 00:36:19 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:36:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: >...But for L23 to kick in, the player has to be aware only that >the irregularity *could* damage the non-offending side. For me, >I know that almost any irregularity I make could damage the >offending side... Dick Quibbler: Yes, it is true that almost any of Bob's irregularities could damage the non-offending side. No, Bob's thesis is invalid because it is a straw man argument. Law 23 does not say "could damage" but instead says "could well damage". As a TD, my rule of thumb for assessing whether a player has met the Law 23 "aware ... could well damage" criterion is this: (a) Suppose that Law 72B1, "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept", did not exist; then (b) Could the player thus intentionally choose to commit an infraction, due to the player believing that the damage to the player's side caused by the prescribed rectification would on average be less than the damage to the player's side caused by the player not committing any infraction at 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 Wed Jul 22 01:07:26 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:07:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A66274A.6020305@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >.....theoretical example: > >Let us assume a revoke occurs on bd. X at each table on which it is >played. The revoke is not relevant but the one trick penalty still >applies. The non-offending side asks that the penalty >(rectification) be waived at each table. At some tables the TD >accepts this request, at others he (another TD) doesn't. Thus at >some tables the non-offending side gets one trick more than at >other tables, due to the "discretion" of the TD. Law 81C5: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to waive rectification **for cause**, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." Richard Hills: As Edgar Kaplan noted many years ago, the Director's discretion is not arbitrarily unlimited but rather is fettered by the words "for cause". Edgar's interpretation was that the waiver of rectification (penalty) was permitted only if the non-offending side partially "caused" the offending side's irregularity. The example that Edgar gave was a defender accidentally exposing a card after declarer accidentally spilled coffee over the defender. In that case the Director could "for cause" waive the normal Law 50 penalty card rectification upon request from declarer. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 22 01:18:43 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:18:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?=A781C5?= In-Reply-To: <4A66274A.6020305@aol.com> References: <4A66274A.6020305@aol.com> Message-ID: <001301ca0a59$96f7a6a0$c4e6f3e0$@no> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > A friend (a TD who is not a member of blml) has asked me to post a > question and get your opinions. > It concerns ?81C5. As he (and I) understand it, this says in short > form) that the TD can decide if he waives a request that there be no > rectification or can ignore it (in his discretion). First of all let us work with the correct law text and not something invented: Law81C5 says that: The Director?s duties and powers normally include also to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. > > He feels that this dangerous, at least at lower levels with less > experienced or proficient TDs. > > He gives, as a theoretical example: > > Let us assume a revoke occurs on bd. X at each table on which it is > played. The revoke is not relevant but the one trick penalty still > applies. The non-offending side asks that the penalty (rectification) > be waived at each table. At some tables the TD accepts this request, at > others he (another TD) doesn't. Thus at some tables the non-offending > side gets one trick more than at other tables, due to the "discretion" > of the TD. > > My friend asks for your opinions. Ciao, JE Honestly this sounds ridiculous: A non-offending side can only request a waiver at their own table, never "at each table". (A theoretical possibility of course exists that each non-offending side request a waiver at their own table in which case the Director must deal with several separate such requests). However, the decision is at the discretion of the Director and must be considered independently at each table. He can only waive rectification for cause, and this cause cannot be that he finds the prescribed rectification either unduly severe or advantageous to either side (Law 12B2). In the specific case of a revoke I can only think of one "cause for waiving the rectification": If the revoke was somehow a direct consequence of an irregularity (as for instance an extraneous remark) from the non-offending side. I think your friend's fear is unfounded. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 22 01:45:53 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:45:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: >This takes directing to a new level. A player makes a insufficient >bid, which is then accepted. It never crossed my mind to apply Law >23! [snip] Dick Quibbler: Richard Hills is in the middle of a game-force relay auction, and desperately needs another level of bidding space in order to fully investigate the grand slam possibility. Fortunately LHO is also Richard Hills, so relayer Richard Hills perpetrates an insufficient bid which LHO Richard Hills accepts under Law 27A. Richard Hills knows that Richard Hills always accepts insufficient bids without bothering to summon the Director, in order to prove how idiosyncratically clever Richard Hills is in his knowledge of the Laws. Relayer Richard Hills now has sufficient bidding space to relay to the cold grand slam. However, at the end of play RHO Richard Hills summons Director Richard Hills. Under Law 23 Director Richard Hills adjusts the score back to the small slam with an overtrick. Under Law 90B7 Director Richard Hills fines relayer Richard Hills a 6-imp Procedural Penalty. And under Law 91 Director Richard Hills fines LHO Richard Hills a Diet Coke Disciplinary Penalty, for being a Clever Dick. What's the problem? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Jul 22 01:55:39 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:55:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <4A660EB8.9080007@skynet.be> References: <200907081854.n68IshWa003100@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A58F87B.5090901@nhcc.net> <4A59A3E4.1000403@skynet.be> <007b01ca0712$edaaf410$c900dc30$@no> <4A659181.6000607@skynet.be> <001201ca09f3$ad4d2ee0$07e78ca0$@no> <4A65E36E.6020603@skynet.be> <000d01ca0a24$d7d6a7f0$8783f7d0$@no> <4A660EB8.9080007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A66557B.7070706@consolidated.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Well, we have different ideas about which crime is worse: giving UI to > partner or MI to opponents. That has been said 237 times already, so you > don't need to say it a 238th time. It is a useless argument in this > discussion. > > > I don't know if this has been asked before, but could I not...as respondent...ask partner to leave the table before I answered such a question? This might abate the UI issue. --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090721/a2ccfc7b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 22 02:19:41 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:19:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A warning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A65711C.5040304@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: >They [the Appeals Committee] gave a warning (the least severe >disciplinary penalty in the applicable regulations) for "not >knowing the system", not for the MI. [snip] WBF Code of Practice for Appeal Committees, page 9: A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a violation of the laws or of a regulation made under the laws. If an appeal committee awards a procedural penalty it should specify what law or regulation has been violated. In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated. Score adjustment is the way to redress damage. 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 Jul 22 04:19:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:19:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A66557B.7070706@consolidated.net> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: [snip] >>>Well, we have different ideas about which crime is worse: giving >>>UI to partner or MI to opponents. That has been said 237 times >>>already, so you don't need to say it a 238th time. It is a >>>useless argument in this discussion. [snip] Grattan Endicott earlier (13th July) uselessly argued: [snip] >>These are, after all, no more than the rules of a game; those who >>choose to play accept its rules. >> Or in some cases make them up to suit themselves. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills uselessly argues: It is consistent with blml netiquette to assert that Herman De Wael is using a straw man argument (debating the fallacious reasoning, not an ad hominem attack on the lovable person), since the 2007 Laws (and Official 2008 Interpretations) of Duplicate Bridge define giving MI to the opponents as Always A Crime, but giving UI to partner as Not Necessarily A Crime. Rob Park suggested: >I don't know if this has been asked before, but could I not...as >respondent...ask partner to leave the table before I answered such >a question? This might abate the UI issue. Law 20F1, third sentence: "Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." Richard Hills quibbles: In the former 1997-2007 regime, the WBF Laws Committee gave some official guidance on how and when the Director should issue an exceptional instruction. (As a highly pedantic point, it is not quite clear whether this ancien regime WBF LC minute is still official in these post-2008 modern times. It is true that the 1997-2007 WBF LC issued a minute validating pre-1997 minutes unless and until specifically over- ruled by a later minute, but that validating minute itself was a 1997-2007 minute, and the 2008-2018 WBF LC has not yet issued a minute validating 1997-2007 minutes -- perhaps because the WBF LC knows that some 1997-2007 minutes are certainly invalid, due to being rendered obsolete by the massive changes to the nature of the Laws in the 2007 edition of TFLB.) However, since I am not trying to convince the Senate Judiciary Committee of my ability to serve on the Supreme Court, I will now directly answer Bob Park's suggestion. The 1997-2007 WBF LC ruled that: (a) If a player is asked a question about the agreed meaning of her partner's call, and (b) That player is aware that they have a mutually agreed partnership understanding about the call, but (c) The player has temporarily forgotten what the mutually agreed partnership understanding actually is, then (d) The player should summon the Director pursuant to Law 20F1, and (e) The Director should ask the player to leave the table, then (f) The Director should invite the partner to explain the mutually agreed partnership understanding (but Not explain the partner's actual cards, e.g. if the partner has psyched it is the misleading understanding which must be explained), but (g) In no circumstances before the Correction Period does the Director permit the enquiring side to receive two explanations from both partners. 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 06:50:39 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:50:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4A66557B.7070706@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0907212150p247f7015ga5d8a3aba638d6ff@mail.gmail.com> > > (g) In no circumstances before the Correction Period does the > Director permit the enquiring side to receive two explanations from > both partners. But I guess it is okay to receive one explanation from both partners. If the enquiring side violates this, it sounds like they should be punished. I am just reading this using ordinary English. I have had my partner or me sent away from the table a few times in the ACBL, and the director forced the receiving side to hear a second explanation. Who is it fault according to this guideline? The wording seems to imply that it is the receiving side. This guideline is not so well worded, is it? I commend the ACBL for ignoring it, for it makes more boards playable. Jerry Fusselman From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 22 09:03:06 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:03:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 81C5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A66B9AA.50500@aol.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Jeff Easterson: > >> .....theoretical example: >> >> Let us assume a revoke occurs on bd. X at each table on which it is >> played. The revoke is not relevant but the one trick penalty still >> applies. The non-offending side asks that the penalty >> (rectification) be waived at each table. At some tables the TD >> accepts this request, at others he (another TD) doesn't. Thus at >> some tables the non-offending side gets one trick more than at >> other tables, due to the "discretion" of the TD. > > Law 81C5: > > "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying > irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and > powers normally include also the following: > to waive rectification **for cause**, in his discretion, upon the > request of the non-offending side." > > Richard Hills: > > As Edgar Kaplan noted many years ago, the Director's discretion is > not arbitrarily unlimited but rather is fettered by the words "for > cause". Edgar's interpretation was that the waiver of rectification > (penalty) was permitted only if the non-offending side partially > "caused" the offending side's irregularity. I don't think this will solve the problem. One TD feels that "for cause" is applicable, the next one feels it isn't. JE > > The example that Edgar gave was a defender accidentally exposing a > card after declarer accidentally spilled coffee over the defender. > In that case the Director could "for cause" waive the normal Law 50 > penalty card rectification upon request from declarer. > > > 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 JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 22 09:07:37 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:07:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?windows-1252?q?=A781C5?= In-Reply-To: <001301ca0a59$96f7a6a0$c4e6f3e0$@no> References: <4A66274A.6020305@aol.com> <001301ca0a59$96f7a6a0$c4e6f3e0$@no> Message-ID: <4A66BAB9.6040507@aol.com> Sven Pran schrieb: > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson >> A friend (a TD who is not a member of blml) has asked me to post a >> question and get your opinions. >> It concerns ?81C5. As he (and I) understand it, this says in short >> form) that the TD can decide if he waives a request that there be no >> rectification or can ignore it (in his discretion). > > First of all let us work with the correct law text and not something > invented: > Law81C5 says that: The Director?s duties and powers normally include also to > waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the > non-offending side. > >> He feels that this dangerous, at least at lower levels with less >> experienced or proficient TDs. >> >> He gives, as a theoretical example: >> >> Let us assume a revoke occurs on bd. X at each table on which it is >> played. The revoke is not relevant but the one trick penalty still >> applies. The non-offending side asks that the penalty (rectification) >> be waived at each table. At some tables the TD accepts this request, at >> others he (another TD) doesn't. Thus at some tables the non-offending >> side gets one trick more than at other tables, due to the "discretion" >> of the TD. >> >> My friend asks for your opinions. Ciao, JE > > Honestly this sounds ridiculous: > > A non-offending side can only request a waiver at their own table, never "at > each table". (A theoretical possibility of course exists that each > non-offending side request a waiver at their own table in which case the > Director must deal with several separate such requests). This is what my friend meant. (He warned that it was a theoretical case.) At each/every table the non-offending side requests a waiver. And there is (presumably) a different director at each table. At some tables the director feels that there is cause for a rectification, at others he doesn't. JE > > However, the decision is at the discretion of the Director and must be > considered independently at each table. He can only waive rectification for > cause, and this cause cannot be that he finds the prescribed rectification > either unduly severe or advantageous to either side (Law 12B2). > > In the specific case of a revoke I can only think of one "cause for waiving > the rectification": If the revoke was somehow a direct consequence of an > irregularity (as for instance an extraneous remark) from the non-offending > side. > > I think your friend's fear is unfounded. > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 22 09:54:04 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:54:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A66C59C.1010105@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > > Relayer Richard Hills now has sufficient bidding space to relay to > the cold grand slam. However, at the end of play RHO Richard Hills > summons Director Richard Hills. > > Under Law 23 Director Richard Hills adjusts the score back to the > small slam with an overtrick. Under Law 90B7 Director Richard > Hills fines relayer Richard Hills a 6-imp Procedural Penalty. And > under Law 91 Director Richard Hills fines LHO Richard Hills a Diet > Coke Disciplinary Penalty, for being a Clever Dick. > If LHO Richard Hills had to _drink_ that Diet Coke it would be cruel and unusual punishment. Relayer Richard Hills hs much the better of the deal. Switch the penalties around, then we are d'accord. Best regards Matthias From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 22 10:29:09 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:29:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Warning: this might offend you Message-ID: <4A66CDD5.5090409@aol.com> If you are the sort of person who likes to come along and be offended then it might be better to delete this now. Recently ran across a comment by Woody Allen that might amuse those of you who haven't already seen it: Having sex is like playing bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 22 10:35:48 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:35:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?=A781C5?= In-Reply-To: <4A66BAB9.6040507@aol.com> References: <4A66274A.6020305@aol.com> <001301ca0a59$96f7a6a0$c4e6f3e0$@no> <4A66BAB9.6040507@aol.com> Message-ID: <000f01ca0aa7$69f63600$3de2a200$@no> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson ................. > > A non-offending side can only request a waiver at their own table, never "at > > each table". (A theoretical possibility of course exists that each > > non-offending side request a waiver at their own table in which case the > > Director must deal with several separate such requests). > > This is what my friend meant. (He warned that it was a theoretical > case.) At each/every table the non-offending side requests a waiver. > And there is (presumably) a different director at each table. At some > tables the director feels that there is cause for a rectification, at > others he doesn't. JE When there is more than one Director they should never rule on judgment cases without consulting each other in order to ensure a uniform judgment across the event. Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 22 12:25:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:25:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002301ca0ab6$ba09a3c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Dick Quibbler: > +=+ Question: Is Dick Quibbler a Quick Dibbler? ~ G ~ [Vocabulary: a dibble makes holes, mostly in the ground.] From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 22 12:49:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:49:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004201ca0aba$23033cd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > The 1997-2007 WBF LC ruled that: > > (a) If a player is asked a question about the agreed meaning of > her partner's call, and > > (b) That player is aware that they have a mutually agreed > partnership understanding about the call, but > > (c) The player has temporarily forgotten what the mutually agreed > partnership understanding actually is, then > > (d) The player should summon the Director pursuant to Law 20F1, and > > (e) The Director should ask the player to leave the table, then > > (f) The Director should invite the partner to explain the mutually > agreed partnership understanding (but Not explain the partner's > actual cards, e.g. if the partner has psyched it is the misleading > understanding which must be explained), but > > (g) In no circumstances before the Correction Period does the > Director permit the enquiring side to receive two explanations > from both partners. > +=+ Could I have the reference for that, please, since (g) is expressed in pretty lousy English (and refers to the 'Correvction Period' instituted in 2007)? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Jul 22 13:03:43 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:03:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > However, since I am not trying to convince the Senate Judiciary > Committee of my ability to serve on the Supreme Court, I will now > directly answer Bob Park's suggestion. > > The 1997-2007 WBF LC ruled that: > > (a) If a player is asked a question about the agreed meaning of > her partner's call, and > > (b) That player is aware that they have a mutually agreed > partnership understanding about the call, but > > (c) The player has temporarily forgotten what the mutually agreed > partnership understanding actually is, then > > (d) The player should summon the Director pursuant to Law 20F1, and > > (e) The Director should ask the player to leave the table, then > > (f) The Director should invite the partner to explain the mutually > agreed partnership understanding (but Not explain the partner's > actual cards, e.g. if the partner has psyched it is the misleading > understanding which must be explained), but > > (g) In no circumstances before the Correction Period does the > Director permit the enquiring side to receive two explanations from > both partners. > That seems reasonable. Is the practice still in force? What I was more interested in, though, was the case where you have heard partner's bid (or failure to alert) and think she may have forgotten the system. Any explanation by you will now wake her up. So can you ask her to leave the table while you explain? I have done this 2 or 3 times, and no one seemed to object. In fact, they were all quite happy. I did explain that my partner may have forgotten..or that she and I might be operating on different frequencies. Or is this what you were addressing, and I just got lost while trying to follow the genders of "the player" and "that player" above? --bp From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 22 13:30:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:30:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > What I was more interested in, though, was the case where you have heard partner's bid (or failure to alert) and think she may have forgotten the system. Any explanation by you will now wake her up. So can you ask her to leave the table while you explain? > +=+ And you don't think that wakes her up just as effectively? +=+ From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Jul 22 13:45:13 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:45:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A66FBC9.8010504@consolidated.net> Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > It is better to lose the saddle than the horse. > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Park" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:03 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of > calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > What I was more interested in, though, was the case > where you have heard partner's bid (or failure to > alert) and think she may have forgotten the system. > Any explanation by you will now wake her up. So > can you ask her to leave the table while you explain? > > +=+ And you don't think that wakes her up just as > effectively? +=+ > > Sorry. I seem to have offended you. I understand your point, but you didn't answer the question. FWIW, the few times I have taken this course, the opponents seemed most appreciative. And my partner scrupulously avoided taking advantage of the the situation. Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090722/975c411a/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 22 14:36:13 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:36:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A66FBC9.8010504@consolidated.net> References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A66FBC9.8010504@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <4A6707BD.6040803@skynet.be> Robert Park wrote: > Grattan wrote: >> From: "Robert Park" >> What I was more interested in, though, was the case >> where you have heard partner's bid (or failure to >> alert) and think she may have forgotten the system. >> Any explanation by you will now wake her up. So >> can you ask her to leave the table while you explain? >> >> +=+ And you don't think that wakes her up just as >> effectively? +=+ >> >> > > > Sorry. I seem to have offended you. I understand your point, but you > didn't answer the question. > > FWIW, the few times I have taken this course, the opponents seemed most > appreciative. And my partner scrupulously avoided taking advantage of > the the situation. > > Bob Park > Grattan makes one point: that sending partner away is a clear indication that you want to say something. There is another point: L20F5a talks of "in any manner". Don't you think this is one manner? As for "scrupulously avoided taking advantage", that is no more than what is required. Contrary to what some people seem to think, the giving of the UI is an infraction in itself (L73B1). Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 22 14:44:52 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:44:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Warning: this might offend you In-Reply-To: <4A66CDD5.5090409@aol.com> References: <4A66CDD5.5090409@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A6709C4.3090608@skynet.be> I looked it up and found the quote was from Mae West. Seems more logical to me. "Good sex is like good Bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand." Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > If you are the sort of person who likes to come along and be offended > then it might be better to delete this now. > > Recently ran across a comment by Woody Allen that might amuse those of > you who haven't already seen it: > > Having sex is like playing bridge. If you don't have a good partner, > you'd better have a good hand. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 22 14:44:42 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:44:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net><004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A66FBC9.8010504@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <006e01ca0aca$30a8f090$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] What I was more interested in, though, was the case where you have heard partner's bid (or failure to alert) and think she may have forgotten the system. Any explanation by you will now wake her up. So can you ask her to leave the table while you explain? +=+ And you don't think that wakes her up just as effectively? +=+ Sorry. I seem to have offended you. I understand your point, but you didn't answer the question. FWIW, the few times I have taken this course, the opponents seemed most appreciative. And my partner scrupulously avoided taking advantage of the situation. Bob Park ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090722/b245c89d/attachment-0001.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 22 14:50:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:50:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A66FBC9.8010504@consolidated.net> <4A6707BD.6040803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007801ca0aca$f817c7a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> As for "scrupulously avoided taking advantage", that is no more than what is required. Contrary to what some people seem to think, the giving of the UI is an infraction in itself (L73B1). > +=+ Only if done deliberately. There must be intent. to convey information. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Jul 22 15:01:11 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:01:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A6707BD.6040803@skynet.be> References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A66FBC9.8010504@consolidated.net> <4A6707BD.6040803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A670D97.9060805@consolidated.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Park wrote: > >> Grattan wrote: >> >>> From: "Robert Park" >>> What I was more interested in, though, was the case >>> where you have heard partner's bid (or failure to >>> alert) and think she may have forgotten the system. >>> Any explanation by you will now wake her up. So >>> can you ask her to leave the table while you explain? >>> >>> +=+ And you don't think that wakes her up just as >>> effectively? +=+ >>> >>> >>> >> Sorry. I seem to have offended you. I understand your point, but you >> didn't answer the question. >> >> FWIW, the few times I have taken this course, the opponents seemed most >> appreciative. And my partner scrupulously avoided taking advantage of >> the the situation. >> >> Bob Park >> >> > > Grattan makes one point: that sending partner away is a clear indication > that you want to say something. > There is another point: L20F5a talks of "in any manner". Don't you think > this is one manner? > I see your point. Does this change if you are asked to say something? > As for "scrupulously avoided taking advantage", that is no more than > what is required. Contrary to what some people seem to think, the giving > of the UI is an infraction in itself (L73B1). > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090722/ea539bd8/attachment.html From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Jul 22 15:14:05 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:14:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A6707BD.6040803@skynet.be> References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A66FBC9.8010504@consolidated.net> <4A6707BD.6040803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A67109D.80801@consolidated.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Park wrote: > >> Grattan wrote: >> >>> From: "Robert Park" >>> What I was more interested in, though, was the case >>> where you have heard partner's bid (or failure to >>> alert) and think she may have forgotten the system. >>> Any explanation by you will now wake her up. So >>> can you ask her to leave the table while you explain? >>> >>> +=+ And you don't think that wakes her up just as >>> effectively? +=+ >>> >>> >>> >> Sorry. I seem to have offended you. I understand your point, but you >> didn't answer the question. >> >> FWIW, the few times I have taken this course, the opponents seemed most >> appreciative. And my partner scrupulously avoided taking advantage of >> the the situation. >> >> Bob Park >> >> > > Grattan makes one point: that sending partner away is a clear indication > that you want to say something. > There is another point: L20F5a talks of "in any manner". Don't you think > this is one manner? > Maybe so. But she may not know exactly what I think the problem is...or what I think our understanding is. All in all, sending partner from the table lets me give more information to opponents and less to partner. So it seems better than holding that discussion while she is at the table. That would do even more to wake her up and (perhaps) enlighten her. Then she will have a more difficult time bending over backwards to avoid further problems. --bp > As for "scrupulously avoided taking advantage", that is no more than > what is required. Contrary to what some people seem to think, the giving > of the UI is an infraction in itself (L73B1). > > Herman. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090722/c17d73d8/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 22 15:19:30 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:19:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law agin the wearin' o' the Green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:36:19 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick asserted: > >> ...But for L23 to kick in, the player has to be aware only that >> the irregularity *could* damage the non-offending side. For me, >> I know that almost any irregularity I make could damage the >> offending side... > > Dick Quibbler: > > Yes, it is true that almost any of Bob's irregularities could > damage the non-offending side. > > No, Bob's thesis is invalid because it is a straw man argument. > Law 23 does not say "could damage" but instead says "could well > damage". It took me an embarassingly long time to figure this out. Trying to redeem myself, or show what a tortured life I lead, "could well" and "might well" seem to be idiomatic expressions. I found them maybe in one dictionary but not in mine. Meanwhile, "does well damage", "would well damage", and "should well damage" seem to pick up dictionary definitions of 'well' that are completely unrelated to "might well" and "could well". The phrase seems to work best in situations were there is a trivial possibility of the statement being true without the well. So you can say "He might die in the next day" and you are saying something that could be true about anyone (alive). If you say "He might well die in the next day" you are saying that there is something going on, such as a critical injury, which raises the probability about a trivial baseline to something worth considering. Other examples: This street could be named Hospital Drive (trivially true) versus This street could well be named Hospital Drive; He could be a diamond in the ruff versus he could well be a diamond in the ruff. It doesn't work for other situations. He could well do three pull-ups. So it implies some existing reason for raising a probability above a trivial baseline, and raising it to a reasonable level worth considering. > > As a TD, my rule of thumb for assessing whether a player has met > the Law 23 "aware ... could well damage" criterion is this: > > (a) Suppose that Law 72B1, "A player must not infringe a law > intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is > willing to accept", did not exist; > > then > > (b) Could the player thus intentionally choose to commit an > infraction, due to the player believing that > the damage to the player's side caused by the prescribed rectification > would on average be less than the damage to the player's side caused by > the player not committing any infraction at all Exactly what the criterion should be for triggering L23, IMO. However, not quite what the law actually is, according to my analysis. (If "would be likely" means "greater than 50% probability", then the above does correspond to the 1997 law at matchpoints.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 22 15:30:16 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:30:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:30:08 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > It is better to lose the saddle than the horse. > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Park" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:03 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of > calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> > What I was more interested in, though, was the case > where you have heard partner's bid (or failure to > alert) and think she may have forgotten the system. > Any explanation by you will now wake her up. So > can you ask her to leave the table while you explain? >> > +=+ And you don't think that wakes her up just as > effectively? +=+ The words ?nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made? (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 22 17:37:20 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:37:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007801ca0aca$f817c7a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A66FBC9.8010504@consolidated.net> <4A6707BD.6040803@skynet.be> <007801ca0aca$f817c7a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A673230.9080402@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > > As for "scrupulously avoided taking advantage", that > is no more than what is required. Contrary to what > some people seem to think, the giving of the UI is an > infraction in itself (L73B1). > +=+ Only if done deliberately. There must be intent. > to convey information. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ When replying to a question in such a manner as to tell partner something he did not know beforehand, that, to me, is intent. There is, after all, an alternative, which is to tell the opponents the meaning of the bid as you realize partner intended it. I am not saying (here) that this infraction is less or more important than some other one, but I won't let people state that it is not an infraction. That is simply not true. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 22 17:40:06 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:40:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A670D97.9060805@consolidated.net> References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A66FBC9.8010504@consolidated.net> <4A6707BD.6040803@skynet.be> <4A670D97.9060805@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <4A6732D6.7060506@skynet.be> Robert Park wrote: >> There is another point: L20F5a talks of "in any manner". Don't you think >> this is one manner? >> > > I see your point. Does this change if you are asked to say something? No, why should it change anything? In any manner = in any manner. You have an alternative. Please don't confound two things: there are two infractions here, and a player must choose which one. Some people on this list believe that the infraction they chose to make is the less important one, but the only argument they give for that being less important is that they have to make it because they wwould otherwise be breaking the other law. Circular reasoning, in other words. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 22 17:45:48 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:45:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A67109D.80801@consolidated.net> References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A66FBC9.8010504@consolidated.net> <4A6707BD.6040803@skynet.be> <4A67109D.80801@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <4A67342C.3080107@skynet.be> Robert Park wrote: >> > > Maybe so. But she may not know exactly what I think the problem is...or > what I think our understanding is. Well, in the examples I was starting from, you know exactly what partner believes the system is, because (s)he has just told you so in response to a question by opponents. Of course when you are not certain what partner believes the system to be, it is best to explain the system as you believe it is. > All in all, sending partner from the > table lets me give more information to opponents and less to partner. Less, but not nothing. What else could the sending away mean, other than "I am going to tell them what your bid means according to me, and I believe it is something else than what you thought it was". Of course, sometimes, you don't tell her if you think it is B or C, but she knows it is not A. And that is UI. > So > it seems better than holding that discussion while she is at the table. > That would do even more to wake her up and (perhaps) enlighten her. Then > she will have a more difficult time bending over backwards to avoid > further problems. > There may be cases where you are right, and I may grant you the chance to do it then, but in general, I believe that it is better to just explain what you know she thinks she was meaning with her bid. After all (*), that is a better description of what she actually holds than the systemic meaning, so I fail to see how the opponents could ever be damaged by the MI you are giving to them. (*) but this is an argument I don't want to use. I fully realize that one should not give MI, "just because it does no damage". > --bp > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 22 17:48:32 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:48:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A6734D0.8000405@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > The words ?nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been > made? (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding > requirement of the > laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct > explanations of the > partnership understandings. And could you please tell me, Robert, where in the laws this exemption to L20F5a is written? OR in which of the WBFLC statements since 2007 it has been written? It is not permitted, in a discussion about laws, to state that one law supersedes another without there being at least some corroboration. Your statement above boils down to: we are right because we say we are. That is circular reasoning of the worst kind. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 22 18:18:59 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:18:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A6734D0.8000405@skynet.be> References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6734D0.8000405@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:48:32 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> The words ?nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been >> made? (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding >> requirement of the >> laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct >> explanations of the >> partnership understandings. > > And could you please tell me, Robert, where in the laws this exemption > to L20F5a is written? OR in which of the WBFLC statements since 2007 it > has been written? > > It is not permitted, in a discussion about laws, to state that one law > supersedes another without there being at least some corroboration. > > Your statement above boils down to: we are right because we say we are. > That is circular reasoning of the worst kind. Hi Herman. This is a direct quote from the WBFLC minutes of 2008 at Beijing. I should have cited the source, sorry. Don't you get credit for the existence of this law? This opinion supports Robert Park. He has an obligation under the laws to provide a correct explanation of partnership agreements to the opponents. Whatever else you want to say about asking partner to leave (he should check with the director to make sure the director doesn't mind, it seems to make everyone happy, it normally isn't his job to explain his own bids, maybe he should just tell the opps while his partner is at the table), this opinion says that waking up partner to a mistaken explanation isn't a reason to avoid giving them the correct explanation Good enough? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 22 20:39:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:39:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6734D0.8000405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002201ca0afb$dac96060$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > And could you please tell me, Robert, where in the laws this exemption to L20F5a is written? OR in which of the WBFLC statements since 2007 it has been written? > +=+ I think Robert is quoting the following: ......................................................................... ""The words "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made" 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."" [WBFLC minute of 10th October 2008] ........................................................................ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 22 20:49:14 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:49:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <002701ca0afd$1e3c4370$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott (also ********************************** > It is better to lose the saddle than the horse. > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:48 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> > And could you please tell me, Robert, where in the laws this exemption to > L20F5a is written? OR in which of the WBFLC statements since 2007 it has > been written? >> > +=+ I think Robert is quoting the following: > ......................................................................... > ""The words "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been > made" 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."" > [WBFLC minute of 10th October 2008] > ........................................................................ > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' CORRECTION +=+ I apologize for a small omission in the above; the minute in question actually reads: """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."" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Jul 22 21:16:36 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:16:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A6732D6.7060506@skynet.be> References: <4A66F20F.1090202@consolidated.net> <004f01ca0abf$c5a3fb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A66FBC9.8010504@consolidated.net> <4A6707BD.6040803@skynet.be> <4A670D97.9060805@consolidated.net> <4A6732D6.7060506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A676594.8080100@consolidated.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Park wrote: > >>> There is another point: L20F5a talks of "in any manner". Don't you think >>> this is one manner? >>> >>> >> I see your point. Does this change if you are asked to say something? >> > > > No, why should it change anything? > In any manner = in any manner. > You have an alternative. > Please don't confound two things: there are two infractions here, and a > player must choose which one. Some people on this list believe that the > infraction they chose to make is the less important one, but the only > argument they give for that being less important is that they have to > make it because they wwould otherwise be breaking the other law. > Circular reasoning, in other words. > > Herman. > > What does that have to do with asking partner to leave the table when opponents ask you to explain her bid? --Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090722/7c62cf04/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Thu Jul 23 08:59:02 2009 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:59:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] MI - with extras Message-ID: Setting: European Youth Team Championships (screens are in use) Board 11. Dealer South. None Vulnerable. ? K J 8 2 ? Q 9 5 4 3 ? - ? J 7 5 4 ? T 9 7 4 ? A Q 6 ? K 6 ? T ? K J 6 3 ? A Q 9 7 5 2 ? A Q 3 ? T 9 6 ? 5 3 ? A J 8 7 2 ? T 8 4 ? K 8 2 South West North East P 1C 2C 2S 3H 4S P 5D P 5H P 5S AP The facts (as reported to me by East - so maybe the reality is somewhat different): N alerted 2C as "at least 4 spades and 5 hearts". East alerted 2S as "game forcing with diamonds". S alerted 2C, but changed his explanation from "majors" to "not sure, but I think it is natural". Thereafter West alerted 5D as a cue bid, while East alerted 4S and 5H as diamond support and control-showing. NS's CC supports North's explanation. The result was 5S-2. After the hand, when East asked West about his bidding, the different explanations came to light and East called the TD. The TD let the score stand for both sides, as West should have called immediately when South changed his explanation, or consulted the CC and called upon noticing the difference. Therefore, West had not done enough to protect his rights. The CTD strongly advised against appealing, calling it a clear-cut decision and an appeal without merit. He explained that, had the TD been called immediately, South would have been sent away from the table with North explaining his bid to both opponents. Althogh he called this "standard procedure", it seems to be at odds with section 3.2 of the CoC: "c) At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made." What is your learned opinion? Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 23 09:37:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:37:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] MI - with extras In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A681326.9050803@skynet.be> I find this ruling very disturbing. For a CTD to give a ruling so far removed from previous practice _AND_ to bully the players out of appealing, saying that it will be without merit, is very grave indeed. I hope the facts, when told by the directorial staff, are far from this one-sided account. Herman. Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Setting: European Youth Team Championships (screens are in use) > > Board 11. Dealer South. None Vulnerable. > ? K J 8 2 > ? Q 9 5 4 3 > ? - > ? J 7 5 4 > > ? T 9 7 4 ? A Q 6 > ? K 6 ? T > ? K J 6 3 ? A Q 9 7 5 2 > ? A Q 3 ? T 9 6 > > ? 5 3 > ? A J 8 7 2 > ? T 8 4 > ? K 8 2 > > South West North East > P 1C 2C 2S > 3H 4S P 5D > P 5H P 5S > AP > > The facts (as reported to me by East - so maybe the reality is somewhat > different): > > N alerted 2C as "at least 4 spades and 5 hearts". East alerted 2S as "game > forcing with diamonds". > S alerted 2C, but changed his explanation from "majors" to "not sure, but > I think it is natural". Thereafter West alerted 5D as a cue bid, while > East alerted 4S and 5H as diamond support and control-showing. > NS's CC supports North's explanation. > The result was 5S-2. > > After the hand, when East asked West about his bidding, the different > explanations came to light and East called the TD. > > The TD let the score stand for both sides, as West should have called > immediately when South changed his explanation, or consulted the CC and > called upon noticing the difference. Therefore, West had not done enough > to protect his rights. > The CTD strongly advised against appealing, calling it a clear-cut > decision and an appeal without merit. He explained that, had the TD been > called immediately, South would have been sent away from the table with > North explaining his bid to both opponents. Althogh he called this > "standard procedure", it seems to be at odds with section 3.2 of the CoC: > "c) At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of > play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the > meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period > should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after > the response has been made." > > What is your learned opinion? > > Regards, > Petrus From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 23 10:06:38 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:06:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure Message-ID: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> We all know the principle of full disclosure. But there is another principle that is omnipresent in the bridge laws. I wish to call this the principle of limited disclosure. Basically, this principle says that while the opponents are entitled to all the information that is available from partnership agreement, they are not entitled to anything more. As an example, I would like to give the following simple auction (opps silent): 1He - 3He - 4He. When dummy comes down, he turns out to have only 6 points. Dummy says they play 6-9, declarer pretends it's 10-11. The director decides the pair cannot prove misbid, and he says he will rule misinformation (from the non-alert). However, he says opponents are not damaged, as neither of them can double. But, says one defender, "if I had known dummy has 6-9 and declarer believes it is 10-11, I can double". No, says TD, you are entitled to know they play 6-9, but you are not entitled to know what they think they are playing, nor that they are having a misunderstanding. I believe that this principle is well understood. But recently, some people are beginning to cast doubt on this being a basic principle. See for instance the MI with extras from Romania. I find these doubts very disturbing. Herman. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jul 23 10:23:07 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:23:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> References: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 23 Jul 2009, at 09:06, Herman De Wael wrote: > you are not > entitled to know what they think they are playing, nor that they are > having a misunderstanding. > > I believe that this principle is well understood. > > But recently, some people are beginning to cast doubt on this being a > basic principle. > > See for instance the MI with extras from Romania. > I find these doubts very disturbing. One swallow doth not make a summer. Gordon Rainsford From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 23 10:36:24 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:36:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: References: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A682108.60403@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > One swallow doth not make a summer. > I have seen other swallows already. Herman. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jul 23 10:46:01 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:46:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A682108.60403@skynet.be> References: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> <4A682108.60403@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 23 Jul 2009, at 09:36, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> One swallow doth not make a summer. >> > > I have seen other swallows already. Maybe you would like to point them out to us, because the one example we have here seems (as reported) to be an example of poor directing in other respects also. Gordon Rainsford From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jul 23 10:51:20 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:51:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20090723085139.49676486C0A2@relay2.webreus.nl> ton: This is an interesting subject (for once). But the facts should have been presented more accurately. Herman talks about a well understood principle and recent doubt. He knows better: I have told him years ago that in my opinion the approach he describes is a wrong one. But I know that appeal committees (in EBL and WBF events) seem to follow it. Which doesn't prove anything, appeal committees do more wrong than right. In my country we do not follow this approach. There is nothing in the laws to support this opinion Herman describes, on the contrary the laws lead to only one reasonable conclusion. Yes, opponents are entitled to receive the right information (that is law) and they do receive whatever information at the table. This leads to the conclusion that they are entitled to combine both sources. To support this view the following. We have five tables were the case happens Herman describes. In two of them the declaring side later in the auction discovers the MI and corrects it after which the opponents get the opportunity to double. In the other three cases the mistake becomes apparent afterwards. With Herman's 'principle' the declaring side not disclosing its mistake gets an advantage. This looks stupid to me. No Herman, it is (well known) stubborness that keeps your non exixsting principle alive not the laws of bridge. ton Herman: We all know the principle of full disclosure. But there is another principle that is omnipresent in the bridge laws. I wish to call this the principle of limited disclosure. Basically, this principle says that while the opponents are entitled to all the information that is available from partnership agreement, they are not entitled to anything more. As an example, I would like to give the following simple auction (opps silent): 1He - 3He - 4He. When dummy comes down, he turns out to have only 6 points. Dummy says they play 6-9, declarer pretends it's 10-11. The director decides the pair cannot prove misbid, and he says he will rule misinformation (from the non-alert). However, he says opponents are not damaged, as neither of them can double. But, says one defender, "if I had known dummy has 6-9 and declarer believes it is 10-11, I can double". No, says TD, you are entitled to know they play 6-9, but you are not entitled to know what they think they are playing, nor that they are having a misunderstanding. I believe that this principle is well understood. But recently, some people are beginning to cast doubt on this being a basic principle. See for instance the MI with extras from Romania. I find these doubts very disturbing. Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 23 12:29:50 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:29:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A682108.60403@skynet.be> References: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> <4A682108.60403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A683B9E.5060904@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> One swallow doth not make a summer. >> >> > > I have seen other swallows already. > Indeed. See for example grattan's answer to my last problem. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 23 13:24:31 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:24:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090723085139.49676486C0A2@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090723085139.49676486C0A2@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A68486F.7030409@skynet.be> ton wrote: > ton: > This is an interesting subject (for once). > But the facts should have been presented more accurately. > Herman talks about a well understood principle and recent doubt. > He knows better: I do. I also know that Ton also has doubts on this subject. Maybe we should think this through. > I have told him years ago that in my opinion the approach > he describes is a wrong one. That is indeed Ton's opinion - and I believe he is wrong in that one. I also know that there appear to be few people that agree with Ton. > But I know that appeal committees (in EBL and > WBF events) seem to follow it. Which doesn't prove anything, appeal > committees do more wrong than right. By definition, it is the appeals committees who arrive at interpretations of the law. If they follow this principle, then maybe they are right and Ton is wrong? > In my country we do not follow this > approach. That's the first I hear of that! > There is nothing in the laws to support this opinion Herman > describes, on the contrary the laws lead to only one reasonable conclusion. > I always like it when I arrive at a conclusion but people tell me there is only one reasonable conclusion (a different one). Should I take this as them believing I am not reasonable? I prefer not to think that way. So please Ton, don't say things like that. If two people arrive at a different conclusion then there is something wrong, and it is extremely arrogant to assume that what is wrong is the powers of reasoning of everyone who disagrees with you. > Yes, opponents are entitled to receive the right information (that is law) > and they do receive whatever information at the table. Yes, they receive it - but does that mean they are entitled to it? > This leads to the > conclusion that they are entitled to combine both sources. Wrong conclusion. They are entitled to combine two pieces of information. But they are not entitled to both pieces separately. So they are not entitled to the combined information. > To support this > view the following. > We have five tables were the case happens Herman describes. In two of them > the declaring side later in the auction discovers the MI and corrects it > after which the opponents get the opportunity to double. In the other three > cases the mistake becomes apparent afterwards. With Herman's 'principle' the > declaring side not disclosing its mistake gets an advantage. This looks > stupid to me. > Yes, it is stupid - but there might be more than one reason for it being stupid. One alternative reason for it being stupid is the fact that the WBF allow a change of call after a correction during the correction period. If that were not allowed, this "stupid" thing would not happen. Maybe the WBF should change the time limit on a change of call (as they already did on the change of lead - before 1997, one could still change ones lead after dummy was faced). > No Herman, it is (well known) stubborness that keeps your non exixsting > principle alive not the laws of bridge. > No Ton, it is the WBF that refuses to alter the principle in general, and keeps it in principle, without looking to see if all its laws conform to the principle. We now know Ton is opposed to the principle. What about the other members of the WBFLC? What about the bridge world in general? Because Ton, if you drop the principle, then you should drop it completely. It seems even more "stupid" to me that in some cases opponents are entitled to the knowledge of a misunderstanding, while in other cases they are not so entitled. Take your own example above: one defender is allowed to change his final pass into a double (based on the now known misunderstanding) but the other one isn't. Don't you think that is stupid too? > ton > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 23 13:40:52 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:40:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090723085139.49676486C0A2@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090723085139.49676486C0A2@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A684C44.9060305@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > Yes, opponents are entitled to receive the right information (that is law) > and they do receive whatever information at the table. This leads to the > conclusion that they are entitled to combine both sources. To support this > view the following. > We have five tables were the case happens Herman describes. In two of them > the declaring side later in the auction discovers the MI and corrects it > after which the opponents get the opportunity to double. In the other three > cases the mistake becomes apparent afterwards. With Herman's 'principle' the > declaring side not disclosing its mistake gets an advantage. This looks > stupid to me. > AG : I've no specific feelings aboiut what constitutes equity in this case, and about how TFLB should be interpreted, but i think this is the wrong argument. Assume the sequence and misnderstanding are the same at two tables, but at one table they're playing the system which agrees with opener's interpretation, and at the second they're playing according to responder's thoughts Then at one table, there is MI, and at the other there is just a misbid, and assuming all due alerts and correcitons are done, then you'll be informed of their misunderstanding at one table and not at the other. And that's considered as fair by the laws. So, 'the mistake must be equally apparent' isn't a good argument. And to Herman : please choose some other case, because I won't believe them if they say 'I would have doubled had i known'. After all, opener might have extra values that do not suggest any game try over a limit 3S, but are sufficient to make even facing a preemptive 3S. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 23 13:51:46 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:51:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] MI - with extras In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A684ED2.8020409@ulb.ac.be> Petrus Schuster OSB a ?crit : > Setting: European Youth Team Championships (screens are in use) > > Board 11. Dealer South. None Vulnerable. > ? K J 8 2 > ? Q 9 5 4 3 > ? - > ? J 7 5 4 > > ? T 9 7 4 ? A Q 6 > ? K 6 ? T > ? K J 6 3 ? A Q 9 7 5 2 > ? A Q 3 ? T 9 6 > > ? 5 3 > ? A J 8 7 2 > ? T 8 4 > ? K 8 2 > > South West North East > P 1C 2C 2S > 3H 4S P 5D > P 5H P 5S > AP > > The facts (as reported to me by East - so maybe the reality is somewhat > different): > > N alerted 2C as "at least 4 spades and 5 hearts". East alerted 2S as "game > forcing with diamonds". > S alerted 2C, but changed his explanation from "majors" to "not sure, but > I think it is natural". Thereafter West alerted 5D as a cue bid, while > East alerted 4S and 5H as diamond support and control-showing. > NS's CC supports North's explanation. > The result was 5S-2. > > After the hand, when East asked West about his bidding, the different > explanations came to light and East called the TD. > > The TD let the score stand for both sides, as West should have called > immediately when South changed his explanation, or consulted the CC and > called upon noticing the difference. Therefore, West had not done enough > to protect his rights. > The CTD strongly advised against appealing, calling it a clear-cut > decision and an appeal without merit. He explained that, had the TD been > called immediately, South would have been sent away from the table with > North explaining his bid to both opponents. Althogh he called this > "standard procedure", it seems to be at odds with section 3.2 of the CoC: > "c) At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of > play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the > meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period > should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after > the response has been made." > > What is your learned opinion? > The TD is wrong. But only as the facts are stated here, of course. First, a case of 'failed to pretect yourself' will never be so obvious as to cause an 'appeal without merit' decision. Second, I like the mechanism of calling one player away from the talbe, I'd apply it happily in some caes, but it's not 100% kosher and you can't ask them to know you'll be prone to do so and take steps to allow it to happen. They find it difficult enough to understand the laws as they stand. While I understand the view that West should have smelled the rat, there is always the problem that calling the TD will give the 2C bidder the information that a misunderstanding by his side is possible. Whence doing so would perhaps put EW at a disadvantage and/or diminish the deal's playability. Also, we're not told *when* South changed his mind. and this could change the possible procedures. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 23 13:58:09 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:58:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A684C44.9060305@ulb.ac.be> References: <20090723085139.49676486C0A2@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A684C44.9060305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A685051.4080604@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > ton a ?crit : > > >> Yes, opponents are entitled to receive the right information (that is law) >> and they do receive whatever information at the table. This leads to the >> conclusion that they are entitled to combine both sources. To support this >> view the following. >> We have five tables were the case happens Herman describes. In two of them >> the declaring side later in the auction discovers the MI and corrects it >> after which the opponents get the opportunity to double. In the other three >> cases the mistake becomes apparent afterwards. With Herman's 'principle' the >> declaring side not disclosing its mistake gets an advantage. This looks >> stupid to me. >> > AG : I've no specific feelings aboiut what constitutes equity in this > case, and about how TFLB should be interpreted, but i think this is the > wrong argument. > > Assume the sequence and misnderstanding are the same at two tables, but > at one table they're playing the system which agrees with opener's > interpretation, and at the second they're playing according to > responder's thoughts > Then at one table, there is MI, and at the other there is just a misbid, > and assuming all due alerts and correcitons are done, then you'll be > informed of their misunderstanding at one table and not at the other. > And that's considered as fair by the laws. So, 'the mistake must be > equally apparent' isn't a good argument. > Very good counter-argument by Alain. If the opponents are entitled (according to Ton) to know of the misunderstanding in one case, then why not in the other? > And to Herman : please choose some other case, because I won't believe > them if they say 'I would have doubled had i known'. After all, opener > might have extra values that do not suggest any game try over a limit > 3S, but are sufficient to make even facing a preemptive 3S. > The fact that you won't believe them if they say it does not preclude them from saying it, and is the reason why you won't rule for them. But basically: why would you not believe them? If one player tells you '6-9', and the other '10-11', and that is the one who raises to 4, don't you consider it a good bet to believe that the raiser only has 14 points, not the 18 apparently needed to be certain of game. Would you not consider doubling as a reasonable bet? > > Best regards > > Alain Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jul 23 14:18:04 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:18:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A68486F.7030409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20090723121817.7B1DC990C13A@relay2.webreus.nl> ton: Dear Hrman, when you read your answer carefully you will discover that to support your own vision you do attack the laws of bridge as they are. With this kind of approach one can defend any (stupid) statement one makes. This reaction has nothing to do with arrogance, it has to do with small demands for the quality of arguments being used. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: donderdag 23 juli 2009 13:25 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure ton wrote: > ton: > This is an interesting subject (for once). > But the facts should have been presented more accurately. > Herman talks about a well understood principle and recent doubt. > He knows better: I do. I also know that Ton also has doubts on this subject. Maybe we should think this through. > I have told him years ago that in my opinion the approach he describes > is a wrong one. That is indeed Ton's opinion - and I believe he is wrong in that one. I also know that there appear to be few people that agree with Ton. > But I know that appeal committees (in EBL and WBF events) seem to > follow it. Which doesn't prove anything, appeal committees do more > wrong than right. By definition, it is the appeals committees who arrive at interpretations of the law. If they follow this principle, then maybe they are right and Ton is wrong? > In my country we do not follow this > approach. That's the first I hear of that! > There is nothing in the laws to support this opinion Herman describes, > on the contrary the laws lead to only one reasonable conclusion. > I always like it when I arrive at a conclusion but people tell me there is only one reasonable conclusion (a different one). Should I take this as them believing I am not reasonable? I prefer not to think that way. So please Ton, don't say things like that. If two people arrive at a different conclusion then there is something wrong, and it is extremely arrogant to assume that what is wrong is the powers of reasoning of everyone who disagrees with you. > Yes, opponents are entitled to receive the right information (that is > law) and they do receive whatever information at the table. Yes, they receive it - but does that mean they are entitled to it? > This leads to the > conclusion that they are entitled to combine both sources. Wrong conclusion. They are entitled to combine two pieces of information. But they are not entitled to both pieces separately. So they are not entitled to the combined information. > To support this > view the following. > We have five tables were the case happens Herman describes. In two of > them the declaring side later in the auction discovers the MI and > corrects it after which the opponents get the opportunity to double. > In the other three cases the mistake becomes apparent afterwards. With > Herman's 'principle' the declaring side not disclosing its mistake > gets an advantage. This looks stupid to me. > Yes, it is stupid - but there might be more than one reason for it being stupid. One alternative reason for it being stupid is the fact that the WBF allow a change of call after a correction during the correction period. If that were not allowed, this "stupid" thing would not happen. Maybe the WBF should change the time limit on a change of call (as they already did on the change of lead - before 1997, one could still change ones lead after dummy was faced). > No Herman, it is (well known) stubborness that keeps your non > exixsting principle alive not the laws of bridge. > No Ton, it is the WBF that refuses to alter the principle in general, and keeps it in principle, without looking to see if all its laws conform to the principle. We now know Ton is opposed to the principle. What about the other members of the WBFLC? What about the bridge world in general? Because Ton, if you drop the principle, then you should drop it completely. It seems even more "stupid" to me that in some cases opponents are entitled to the knowledge of a misunderstanding, while in other cases they are not so entitled. Take your own example above: one defender is allowed to change his final pass into a double (based on the now known misunderstanding) but the other one isn't. Don't you think that is stupid too? > ton > Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jul 23 14:24:57 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:24:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A684C44.9060305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20090723122530.BAA86990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> Alain: Assume the sequence and misnderstanding are the same at two tables, but at one table they're playing the system which agrees with opener's interpretation, and at the second they're playing according to responder's thoughts Then at one table, there is MI, and at the other there is just a misbid, and assuming all due alerts and correcitons are done, then you'll be informed of their misunderstanding at one table and not at the other. And that's considered as fair by the laws. So, 'the mistake must be equally apparent' isn't a good argument. ton: Another example of the impossibility to have reasonable and finite discussions in blml. Just change the input and draw a different conclusion. Dear Alain: The conditions are the same at both tables. MI in both cases, at one table restored as it should be at the other not. ton From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 23 14:51:17 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:51:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A685051.4080604@skynet.be> References: <20090723085139.49676486C0A2@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A684C44.9060305@ulb.ac.be> <4A685051.4080604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A685CC5.4090600@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> ton a ?crit : >> >> >> >>> Yes, opponents are entitled to receive the right information (that is law) >>> and they do receive whatever information at the table. This leads to the >>> conclusion that they are entitled to combine both sources. To support this >>> view the following. >>> We have five tables were the case happens Herman describes. In two of them >>> the declaring side later in the auction discovers the MI and corrects it >>> after which the opponents get the opportunity to double. In the other three >>> cases the mistake becomes apparent afterwards. With Herman's 'principle' the >>> declaring side not disclosing its mistake gets an advantage. This looks >>> stupid to me. >>> >>> >> AG : I've no specific feelings aboiut what constitutes equity in this >> case, and about how TFLB should be interpreted, but i think this is the >> wrong argument. >> >> Assume the sequence and misnderstanding are the same at two tables, but >> at one table they're playing the system which agrees with opener's >> interpretation, and at the second they're playing according to >> responder's thoughts >> Then at one table, there is MI, and at the other there is just a misbid, >> and assuming all due alerts and correcitons are done, then you'll be >> informed of their misunderstanding at one table and not at the other. >> And that's considered as fair by the laws. So, 'the mistake must be >> equally apparent' isn't a good argument. >> >> > > Very good counter-argument by Alain. If the opponents are entitled > (according to Ton) to know of the misunderstanding in one case, then why > not in the other? > > >> And to Herman : please choose some other case, because I won't believe >> them if they say 'I would have doubled had i known'. After all, opener >> might have extra values that do not suggest any game try over a limit >> 3S, but are sufficient to make even facing a preemptive 3S. >> >> > > The fact that you won't believe them if they say it does not preclude > them from saying it, and is the reason why you won't rule for them. > But basically: why would you not believe them? If one player tells you > '6-9', and the other '10-11', and that is the one who raises to 4, don't > you consider it a good bet to believe that the raiser only has 14 > points, not the 18 apparently needed to be certain of game. Would you > not consider doubling as a reasonable bet? > > AG : not in my style. If I think most others wouldn't have bid this contract, because *they* know what they're doing, there is little to win by doubling. Only if the player had a close double (i.e. trump opposition but not enough on the side) would I consider their claim. This is a live case : 1D p 2S p 4S p p p Before the lead, South volunteers the information that his 2S was weak. West, deducing that NS are very light for their contract (a weak jump response + a sign-off over a strong jump), decides it's the right time to double. . But no, North just forgot to alert. He had a strong hand and knew what he was doing. 4S*+1. Your case could be similar, whance it's dangerous to double. But surely there are some more obvious cases for doubling. This one happened not too long ago : N E S W 1C 2D 2H p 4H p 5C p p p In North's mind : 2H natural, 5C slight slam try in clubs, with heart strength rather than length. In South's mind and in their system : 2H transfer to spades, 4H splinter, 5C cue. (notice that 4H isn't alertable, whence no UI) Now there is every reason to believe 5C won't fetch, especially as North seems to have a minimum hand for clubs. Now you can ask your question about the non-alert. My answer would be : a) Without screens, South shall explain, before the lead, that 2H should have been alerted, and explain if asked. This might reopen the bidding for East *and* hint at a possible misunderstanding, enabling him to double.. b) North doesn't have to explain how he understood the bidding, because this isn't part of the system. c) What this becomes with screens on is nebulous, and an official position would be welcome. The problem is, E/W aren't entitled to the same information as without screens - they will get either more (Ton's view) ore a bit less (Herman's view), and that's why the 'non-screen' rules are inefficient and must be clarified. But the potential doubler should always take into account the fact that N/S could know what they were doing, only North forgot to alert (see above). In that case, his speculative double could backfire and, since he was fully informed at the time when he doubled, he would be stuck with it; Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 23 14:58:29 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:58:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090723122530.BAA86990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090723122530.BAA86990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A685E75.6090908@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > > Alain: > > Assume the sequence and misnderstanding are the same at two tables, but at > one table they're playing the system which agrees with opener's > interpretation, and at the second they're playing according to responder's > thoughts Then at one table, there is MI, and at the other there is just a > misbid, and assuming all due alerts and correcitons are done, then you'll be > informed of their misunderstanding at one table and not at the other. > And that's considered as fair by the laws. So, 'the mistake must be equally > apparent' isn't a good argument. > > ton: > Another example of the impossibility to have reasonable and finite > discussions in blml. > Just change the input and draw a different conclusion. > > Dear Alain: > The conditions are the same at both tables. MI in both cases, at one table > restored as it should be at the other not. > > > Sorry, but you didn't understand my example. Let me state it more precisely. 1H 3H 4H (no alert) If 3H was alertable (weak) in their system, then there is MI, rectification before the lead (let's hope so) and possible reopening of the bidding, and possible speculative double. If 3H was a misbid and they're too high too, but the misunderstanding will never be revealed,. with possible differing consequences. So, I repeat : it is possible that, following TFLB's prescripts, the misunderstanding becomes apparent at one table and not at the other. Whence you shouldn't take this as an argument. Which doesn't say you're wrong globally; Best regards Alain From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jul 23 15:31:07 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:31:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A685E75.6090908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20090723133107.BD2B9990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> (no alert) If 3H was alertable (weak) in their system, then there is MI, rectification before the lead (let's hope so) and possible reopening of the bidding, and possible speculative double. If 3H was a misbid and they're too high too, but the misunderstanding will never be revealed,. with possible differing consequences. So, I repeat : it is possible that, following TFLB's prescripts, the misunderstanding becomes apparent at one table and not at the other. Whence you shouldn't take this as an argument. Which doesn't say you're wrong globally; Best regards Alain ton: I am afraid I did understand your example; with the conclusion that it had nothing to do with my contribution. Which is a pity if it was meant to be a reaction. I did not talk about misunderstandings, though there were lot of those in my example, but about MI being an infraction. Once again I rest my case, ton From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jul 23 15:31:01 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:31:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A685E75.6090908@ulb.ac.be> References: <20090723122530.BAA86990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A685E75.6090908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A686615.5060806@t-online.de> Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Sorry, but you didn't understand my example. > > Let me state it more precisely. > > 1H 3H > 4H > > (no alert) > > If 3H was alertable (weak) in their system, then there is MI, > rectification before the lead (let's hope so) and possible reopening of > the bidding, and possible speculative double. > If 3H was a misbid and they're too high too, but the misunderstanding > will never be revealed,. with possible differing consequences. > > So, I repeat : it is possible that, following TFLB's prescripts, the > misunderstanding becomes apparent at one table and not at the other. There was no misunderstanding at the table where responder misbid. Opener understood perfectly the message sent by responder. This message happened not to be the one responder _wanted_ to send, but there was no misunderstanding. MI and misbid are different things, and should not be compared. Best regards Matthias > > Whence you shouldn't take this as an argument. Which doesn't say you're > wrong globally; > > Best regards > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jul 23 15:40:39 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:40:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> References: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A686857.4030502@t-online.de> I fail to see where the problem is. MI: Infraction, I am entitled to learn about this at the time prescribed by the laws, more or les depending on who gets to declare. I may use my brains to draw conclusions from the bidding. Misbid: No infraction. Again I may use my brains and read the signs, but no one has to clear up anything. Why are we comparing apples to oranges? Best regards Matthias From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 23 16:31:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:31:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] MI - with extras References: Message-ID: <001e01ca0ba2$49a889b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:59 AM Subject: [BLML] MI - with extras > Setting: European Youth Team Championships (screens are in use) > > Board 11. Dealer South. None Vulnerable. > ? K J 8 2 > ? Q 9 5 4 3 > ? - > ? J 7 5 4 > > ? T 9 7 4 ? A Q 6 > ? K 6 ? T > ? K J 6 3 ? A Q 9 7 5 2 > ? A Q 3 ? T 9 6 > > ? 5 3 > ? A J 8 7 2 > ? T 8 4 > ? K 8 2 > > South West North East > P 1C 2C 2S > 3H 4S P 5D > P 5H P 5S > AP > > The facts (as reported to me by East - so maybe the reality is somewhat > different): > > N alerted 2C as "at least 4 spades and 5 hearts". East alerted 2S as "game > forcing with diamonds". > S alerted 2C, but changed his explanation from "majors" to "not sure, but > I think it is natural". Thereafter West alerted 5D as a cue bid, while > East alerted 4S and 5H as diamond support and control-showing. > NS's CC supports North's explanation. > The result was 5S-2. > > After the hand, when East asked West about his bidding, the different > explanations came to light and East called the TD. > > The TD let the score stand for both sides, as West should have called > immediately when South changed his explanation, or consulted the CC and > called upon noticing the difference. Therefore, West had not done enough > to protect his rights. > The CTD strongly advised against appealing, calling it a clear-cut > decision and an appeal without merit. He explained that, had the TD been > called immediately, South would have been sent away from the table with > North explaining his bid to both opponents. Althogh he called this > "standard procedure", it seems to be at odds with section 3.2 of the CoC: > "c) At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of > play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the > meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period > should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after > the response has been made." > > What is your learned opinion? > +=+ If the facts are as described, my opinion, albeit not learned, is that this is a mess. West is entitled to correct information as to opponents' partnership understandings and, behind screens, to receive this from his screnmate. South corrected his explanation to 'natural' and West is entitled to act upon that explanation. If West deduces from the explanations he is given, from the auction, his own card holding, and/or the system card, that opponents are in a muddle he has no obligation to make them aware of this, and if attention is not drawn to the irregularity no obligation to call the Director. In the auction he acts upon his deduction at his own risk. As it happened we are told West acted upon the explanation given him and it did not become apparent that he had been misinformed until the end of the play. West appears to have been damaged and to be entitled to redress. The call for the Director is in time. West did ask the appropriate question and received an answer; it is difficult to accuse him of not protecting his own back. The alleged action of the Director in discouraging an appeal from his own ruling is, to seek a suitable word, 'injudicious'. If the report is reliable it is something he should think about again. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 23 16:45:35 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:45:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: <20090723122530.BAA86990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl><4A685E75.6090908@ulb.ac.be> <4A686615.5060806@t-online.de> Message-ID: <003101ca0ba4$3e886a30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited disclosure > Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > >> Sorry, but you didn't understand my example. >> >> Let me state it more precisely. >> >> 1H 3H >> 4H >> >> (no alert) >> >> If 3H was alertable (weak) in their system, then there is MI, >> rectification before the lead (let's hope so) and possible reopening of >> the bidding, and possible speculative double. >> If 3H was a misbid and they're too high too, but the misunderstanding >> will never be revealed,. with possible differing consequences. >> >> So, I repeat : it is possible that, following TFLB's prescripts, the >> misunderstanding becomes apparent at one table and not at the other. > > There was no misunderstanding at the table where responder misbid. > Opener understood perfectly the message sent by responder. This message > happened not to be the one responder _wanted_ to send, but there was no > misunderstanding. > > MI and misbid are different things, and should not be compared. > > Best regards > Matthias > >> >> Whence you shouldn't take this as an argument. Which doesn't say you're >> wrong globally; >> >> Best regards >> >> Alain >> +=+ Perhaps I need to know a little bit more about it. For example, did North not alert because he thought the 3H bid was not alertable? Or again, is it possible that he actually has his 4H bid? This seems to be an excursion away from the original subject, and I am not altogether clear about the background. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 23 21:22:34 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:22:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A686857.4030502@t-online.de> References: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> <4A686857.4030502@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000c01ca0bca$eef3b9d0$ccdb2d70$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Matthias Berghaus > Sent: 23. juli 2009 15:41 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure > > I fail to see where the problem is. > > MI: Infraction, I am entitled to learn about this at the time prescribed by the laws, > more or les depending on who gets to declare. I may use my brains to draw > conclusions from the bidding. > > Misbid: No infraction. Again I may use my brains and read the signs, but no one > has to clear up anything. > > Why are we comparing apples to oranges? Because the DwS supporters can't see the difference and don't want to listen to any objections to their arguments, not even from WBFLC representatives. Regards Sven From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 24 01:06:18 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:06:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?=A781C5?= In-Reply-To: <4A66274A.6020305@aol.com> References: <4A66274A.6020305@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A68ECEA.2040006@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] I like law 81C5. For example, it allows a player to ask the director to to waive the law against a handicapped player who pulls wrong card(s) from his hand or his bidding box. An alternative is not to draw attention to the infraction. That option may not be available, however. For instance, the "offender", himself, sometimes draws attention to his infraction. IMO, the director should rarely exercise discretion in this matter. He should normally accede to a request by a non-offender to waive the law. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jul 24 05:10:52 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:10:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <200907211749.n6LHnVKN016258@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200907211749.n6LHnVKN016258@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A69263C.4090806@nhcc.net> > From: Herman De Wael > Of course the question is perfectly legal, but Steve said it should be > illegal because of the reason for asking. Whoa! I never wrote anything like that. Is there another Steve around? My view is that questions should _always_ be legal except insofar as they communicate with partner. I don't personally object to the "pro question," though I realize the current Laws attempt to make it illegal. What I actually wrote was that asking a question to put opponents into an invidious UI position is _legal_ and indeed potentially _required_ if there's an anti-dumping regulation in effect. I don't like this, but my opinion doesn't count. > If you ask because you want to make certain that they are not using some > exotic system, that is OK; but if the reason is that you want to find > out if 4NT is Blackwood after all, that is (according to Steve, and I > agree) not OK. I also object to any rules that require mind reading to enforce. The WBFLC doesn't share my opinion. > So, and that was my point, in order for the question to remain allowed, > AND the reason for asking (exploring a mistake) to be taken away, the > responder should be allowed to mask the mistake by, in effect, lying > about his actual system. That's one approach. It's probably second best but better than what we have now. Jeff Rubens has suggested something I like better: _correct_ alerts and answers are AI. This last would require a Laws change, but I believe it would make a more interesting game. Of course neither Herman's nor my personal beliefs about what makes a good game is relevant to what the Laws actually are. > Well, this was Steve's suggestion - that asking a question for the > reason of discovering a misunderstanding ought to be illegal. No, I wouldn't make the question illegal, but I would prefer the situation to be different than it now is. As noted above, the WBFLC has a different opinion. > After all, one is not entitled to the knowledge that opponents are > having a misunderstanding. > So asking specifically for that purpose should be illegal. This will be very hard to enforce, and I don't think it's the best way to deal with the problem. That's if you think it's a problem at all. Apparently the WBFLC doesn't see any problem. > Contrary to what some people seem to think, the giving of the UI is an > infraction in itself (L73B1). From: "Grattan" > +=+ Only if done deliberately. There must be intent. > to convey information. Pardon me, Grattan, but I don't see intent anywhere in L73B1. Putting it there (perhaps by some subtle reasoning that I don't see) will make it very hard to rule such cases. Of course that doesn't stop the LC in other places. From: "Sven Pran" > The only reason for a question to be illegal is if the purpose of it is to > communicate some information to partner. It's illegal if it _does_ communicate information about the player's hand, regardless of purpose. I can think of three other reasons a question may be illegal: wrongly timed, misleads an opponent, or communicates about opponents' methods ("pro question"). There may be more reasons I'm not thinking of. From: "Robert Frick" > ...the overriding requirement of the > laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct > explanations of the partnership understandings. This "overriding requirement" is because of the WBFLC minute, not anything actually written in the Laws themselves. Actually, the minute itself isn't as clear as it might be, but I'm sure that was the intent. As noted above, this leads to the approved tactic of asking questions whenever you think the opponents might be having a misunderstanding. (At least if you have a competent TD, not to be assumed in the ACBL.) From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 10:04:12 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:04:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (Unnecessary) explanation of calls In-Reply-To: <4A69263C.4090806@nhcc.net> References: <200907211749.n6LHnVKN016258@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A69263C.4090806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4A696AFC.9040909@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> Of course the question is perfectly legal, but Steve said it should be >> illegal because of the reason for asking. > > Whoa! I never wrote anything like that. Is there another Steve around? > > My view is that questions should _always_ be legal except insofar as > they communicate with partner. I don't personally object to the "pro > question," though I realize the current Laws attempt to make it illegal. > > What I actually wrote was that asking a question to put opponents into > an invidious UI position is _legal_ and indeed potentially _required_ if > there's an anti-dumping regulation in effect. I don't like this, but my > opinion doesn't count. > OK Steve, amended. But did I really misrepresent you that much. I said you believed it should be illegal. You merely said you don't like it. Is that so much different? Anyway, I still note that you think there should be no asking of questions merely to get bidders to reveal a misunderstanding and give one another UI. >> If you ask because you want to make certain that they are not using some >> exotic system, that is OK; but if the reason is that you want to find >> out if 4NT is Blackwood after all, that is (according to Steve, and I >> agree) not OK. > > I also object to any rules that require mind reading to enforce. The > WBFLC doesn't share my opinion. > Indeed, it is very hard to make rules to enforce this, but I note again that you believe the practice is not OK. >> So, and that was my point, in order for the question to remain allowed, >> AND the reason for asking (exploring a mistake) to be taken away, the >> responder should be allowed to mask the mistake by, in effect, lying >> about his actual system. > > That's one approach. It's probably second best but better than what we > have now. Jeff Rubens has suggested something I like better: _correct_ > alerts and answers are AI. This last would require a Laws change, but I > believe it would make a more interesting game. > > Of course neither Herman's nor my personal beliefs about what makes a > good game is relevant to what the Laws actually are. > No, but they are relevant to what the Laws ought to be. I don't think the laws, at the moment, contradict my views. The Beijing decision does, but there is always the possibility that it is retracted even before the decade is out. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 10:09:57 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:09:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090723121817.7B1DC990C13A@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090723121817.7B1DC990C13A@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A696C55.5020105@skynet.be> ton wrote: > ton: > > Dear Hrman, when you read your answer carefully you will discover that to > support your own vision you do attack the laws of bridge as they are. Sorry Ton, but I don't see this. > With > this kind of approach one can defend any (stupid) statement one makes. That is true, if I were to realize that I am attacking the laws of bridge as they are. But since I fail to realize this, I should be allowed to defend my stupid statements. Maybe you can enlighten me on where I attack the laws as they are? > This > reaction has nothing to do with arrogance, it has to do with small demands > for the quality of arguments being used. > > ton > I am sorry for calling you arrogant, and as chairman of the WBFLC you should indeed be granted some leeway in this matter, but for anyone to say that the laws are clear, when another person is saying they are not, is simply wrong. If they are clear, they should be so for anyone. If they are not clear for me, then they are not "clear". Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 10:15:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:15:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090723133107.BD2B9990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090723133107.BD2B9990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A696D8E.4020205@skynet.be> ton wrote: > > (no alert) > > If 3H was alertable (weak) in their system, then there is MI, rectification > before the lead (let's hope so) and possible reopening of the bidding, and > possible speculative double. > If 3H was a misbid and they're too high too, but the misunderstanding will > never be revealed,. with possible differing consequences. > > So, I repeat : it is possible that, following TFLB's prescripts, the > misunderstanding becomes apparent at one table and not at the other. > > Whence you shouldn't take this as an argument. Which doesn't say you're > wrong globally; > > Best regards > > Alain > > ton: > > I am afraid I did understand your example; with the conclusion that it had > nothing to do with my contribution. Which is a pity if it was meant to be a > reaction. > > I did not talk about misunderstandings, though there were lot of those in my > example, but about MI being an infraction. > No Ton, you did not talk about misunderstandings, but we were. Your view is that opponents are entitled (in some cases) to both the real system and the one the player thought he was playing. That is a misunderstanding. We use "the knowledge of a misunderstanding" as a shortcut for saying the same thing. So we were in fact talking about misunderstandings, and about opponents being "entitled" to that or not. > Once again I rest my case, > > ton > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 10:17:25 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:17:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A686857.4030502@t-online.de> References: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> <4A686857.4030502@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A696E15.9090209@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > I fail to see where the problem is. > > MI: Infraction, I am entitled to learn about this at the time prescribed > by the laws, more or les depending on who gets to declare. I may use my > brains to draw conclusions from the bidding. > > Misbid: No infraction. Again I may use my brains and read the signs, but > no one has to clear up anything. > > Why are we comparing apples to oranges? > Because there is a misunderstanding in both cases and according to some, that misunderstanding is information to which the opponents are entitled to. But only in the case of MI, not in the case of misbid. Alain and I believe this is wrong. Either the knowledge of the misunderstanding is entitled to opponents in both instances, or it is in neither. > Best regards > Matthias > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 10:25:16 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:25:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 12B1 Message-ID: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> I would like to draw attention to Law 12B1, in specific one important phrase in that law: ... had the infraction not occurred ... The TD is asked to award an adjusted score based on what would have happened at the table absent the infraction. There seem to be two different interpretations about this phrase, and I guess this is the origin of the recent problems we are having: interpretation one: The infraction refers to the wrong explanation. If the infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get a correct explanation, _in stead of_ the wrong one. interpretation two: The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. If the infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get a correct explanation, _in addition to_ the wrong one. I believe both interpretations have some merit, and I think that many of the harsh words are because people only consider the single interpretation that they believe to be the correct one, hence such sentences as "the laws are clear". I think the WBFLC should, possibly in S?o Paulo, issue a statement about this effect. Meanwhile, I think the readers of blml should vote on which interpretation they prefer. I shall not present my vote now, although you might guess which one it is. Herman. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jul 24 10:34:17 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:34:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 12B1 In-Reply-To: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A697209.1000407@aol.com> I don't understand this. Since the non-offending side has already heard the false explanation I don't understand the difference between 1 and 2 (below). Does "instead..." mean that they no longer are aware of the false explanation? What actually is the difference? JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > I would like to draw attention to Law 12B1, in specific one important > phrase in that law: > > ... had the infraction not occurred ... > > The TD is asked to award an adjusted score based on what would have > happened at the table absent the infraction. > > There seem to be two different interpretations about this phrase, and I > guess this is the origin of the recent problems we are having: > > interpretation one: > > The infraction refers to the wrong explanation. If the infraction does > not occur, the non-offending side get a correct explanation, _in stead > of_ the wrong one. > > interpretation two: > > The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. If the > infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get a correct > explanation, _in addition to_ the wrong one. > > I believe both interpretations have some merit, and I think that many of > the harsh words are because people only consider the single > interpretation that they believe to be the correct one, hence such > sentences as "the laws are clear". > > I think the WBFLC should, possibly in S?o Paulo, issue a statement about > this effect. > > Meanwhile, I think the readers of blml should vote on which > interpretation they prefer. > > I shall not present my vote now, although you might guess which one it is. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jul 24 10:36:20 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:36:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A696E15.9090209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20090724083619.65A28990C160@relay2.webreus.nl> Because there is a misunderstanding in both cases and according to some, that misunderstanding is information to which the opponents are entitled to. But only in the case of MI, not in the case of misbid. Alain and I believe this is wrong. Either the knowledge of the misunderstanding is entitled to opponents in both instances, or it is in neither. Herman. ton: Let me assume that you Herman really want to learn something, which is not likely but still possible. So tell me where in the laws you find any clue to assume that a player is entitled to be informed that a misbid has been made? ton From blml at arcor.de Fri Jul 24 10:36:20 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:36:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A696D8E.4020205@skynet.be> References: <4A696D8E.4020205@skynet.be> <20090723133107.BD2B9990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <22640481.1248424580784.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > ton wrote: > > > > (no alert) > > > > If 3H was alertable (weak) in their system, then there is MI, rectification > > before the lead (let's hope so) and possible reopening of the bidding, and > > possible speculative double. > > If 3H was a misbid and they're too high too, but the misunderstanding will > > never be revealed,. with possible differing consequences. > > > > So, I repeat : it is possible that, following TFLB's prescripts, the > > misunderstanding becomes apparent at one table and not at the other. > > > > Whence you shouldn't take this as an argument. Which doesn't say you're > > wrong globally; > > > > Best regards > > > > Alain > > > > ton: > > > > I am afraid I did understand your example; with the conclusion that it had > > nothing to do with my contribution. Which is a pity if it was meant to be a > > reaction. > > > > I did not talk about misunderstandings, though there were lot of those in my > > example, but about MI being an infraction. > > > > No Ton, you did not talk about misunderstandings, but we were. > Your view is that opponents are entitled (in some cases) to both the > real system and the one the player thought he was playing. That is a > misunderstanding. We use "the knowledge of a misunderstanding" as a > shortcut for saying the same thing. Herman, you are being Herman again. Opponents are entitled, at all times, to correct and complete information about the actual partnershipt agreements. I have not seen anybody OTHER THAN YOURSELF claim that opponents are entitled to information about the system a player thought they were playing. Nor do I know of any basis in the law for that. Thomas Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 10:59:03 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:59:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <22640481.1248424580784.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> References: <4A696D8E.4020205@skynet.be> <20090723133107.BD2B9990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> <22640481.1248424580784.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A6977D7.7080106@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> ton wrote: >>> >>> (no alert) >>> >>> If 3H was alertable (weak) in their system, then there is MI, rectification >>> before the lead (let's hope so) and possible reopening of the bidding, and >>> possible speculative double. >>> If 3H was a misbid and they're too high too, but the misunderstanding will >>> never be revealed,. with possible differing consequences. >>> >>> So, I repeat : it is possible that, following TFLB's prescripts, the >>> misunderstanding becomes apparent at one table and not at the other. >>> >>> Whence you shouldn't take this as an argument. Which doesn't say you're >>> wrong globally; >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Alain >>> >>> ton: >>> >>> I am afraid I did understand your example; with the conclusion that it had >>> nothing to do with my contribution. Which is a pity if it was meant to be a >>> reaction. >>> >>> I did not talk about misunderstandings, though there were lot of those in my >>> example, but about MI being an infraction. >>> >> No Ton, you did not talk about misunderstandings, but we were. >> Your view is that opponents are entitled (in some cases) to both the >> real system and the one the player thought he was playing. That is a >> misunderstanding. We use "the knowledge of a misunderstanding" as a >> shortcut for saying the same thing. > > Herman, you are being Herman again. > Of course. > Opponents are entitled, at all times, to correct and complete information about > the actual partnershipt agreements. I have not seen anybody OTHER THAN YOURSELF > claim that opponents are entitled to information about the system a player thought they were playing. > Nor do I know of any basis in the law for that. > Of course they are not. And yet Ton insists that when ruling, an opponent is entitled to know both the real system and the one the player thought it was. This is not my interpretation, but Ton's. > > Thomas > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 24 11:02:35 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:02:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A686615.5060806@t-online.de> References: <20090723122530.BAA86990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A685E75.6090908@ulb.ac.be> <4A686615.5060806@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A6978AB.5000305@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > > >> Sorry, but you didn't understand my example. >> >> Let me state it more precisely. >> >> 1H 3H >> 4H >> >> (no alert) >> >> If 3H was alertable (weak) in their system, then there is MI, >> rectification before the lead (let's hope so) and possible reopening of >> the bidding, and possible speculative double. >> If 3H was a misbid and they're too high too, but the misunderstanding >> will never be revealed,. with possible differing consequences. >> >> So, I repeat : it is possible that, following TFLB's prescripts, the >> misunderstanding becomes apparent at one table and not at the other. >> > > There was no misunderstanding at the table where responder misbid. > Opener understood perfectly the message sent by responder. This message > happened not to be the one responder _wanted_ to send, but there was no > misunderstanding. > Well, if "understanding something else than what was intended" isn't the definition of "misunderstanding", I'll need a refresher course on both English and message theory. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 24 11:06:27 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:06:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 12B1 In-Reply-To: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A697993.3060103@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > I would like to draw attention to Law 12B1, in specific one important > phrase in that law: > > ... had the infraction not occurred ... > > The TD is asked to award an adjusted score based on what would have > happened at the table absent the infraction. > AG : the problem can't be avoided. Especially behind screens. Without them, one could always imagine asking the player who made the bid to explain it in written form to both his opponents. So this appears to be a case of over-penalizing the OS. We shouln't compound the problem, e.g. by asking the player who gave the wrong explanation what he meant by his own bids, which aren't part of the system - I've seen some TD's demanding this. But we can't avoid this completely. The fact that the player misunderstood his partner's bid will often be known. In general, I don't mind being a bit harsh on players unable to expain their own system, if the choice is between 'too harsh' or 'too laxist'. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 11:17:13 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:17:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090724083619.65A28990C160@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090724083619.65A28990C160@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A697C19.8080508@skynet.be> ton wrote: > > > > Because there is a misunderstanding in both cases and according to some, > that misunderstanding is information to which the opponents are entitled to. > But only in the case of MI, not in the case of misbid. Alain and I believe > this is wrong. Either the knowledge of the misunderstanding is entitled to > opponents in both instances, or it is in neither. > > Herman. > > ton: > Let me assume that you Herman really want to learn something, which is not > likely but still possible. > I resent this statement. I am willing to accept detailed arguments as to why I would be wrong. > So tell me where in the laws you find any clue to assume that a player is > entitled to be informed that a misbid has been made? > Nowhere. But you tell me where in the laws you find it that the player is entitled to know what his opponent thinks his partner's bid meant? You are willing, in one set of cases, to allow the opponent to know both the real system, and the one the responder thought he was playing. Then why not also be willing, in a similar set of cases, to know both the real system and what the bidder thought he was playing. It seems to me that your position is inconsistent. Please note that I do not advocate the second, nor the first, I am merely pointing out to you that you lack consistency. Please also note that the two cases are far more similar than you seem to think. In the majority of cases of this nature, all we know is that two players have a disagreement. We very often do not know which is the real system (and we have guidelines to rule misinformation rather than misbid), so to rule in one case that opponents get to know about the misunderstanding, and in the other not, seems strange to me. One more thing seems strange. You Ton, will reopen the bidding when the misunderstanding comes to light. That means that one opponent gets the benefit of being entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding. Why not the other opponent as well? My feeling is that my interpretation is far "cleaner". > ton > Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jul 24 11:25:25 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:25:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6977D7.7080106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> Herman: Of course they are not. And yet Ton insists that when ruling, an opponent is entitled to know both the real system and the one the player thought it was. This is not my interpretation, but Ton's. ton: I am sorry but I do not know a better word than 'stupid' for your (Herman) behaviour. This reaction is not meant to try to get you on the right track but is directed to the few readers who still tend to take you seriously. The statement Herman gives above has nothing to do with what I have ever said. Of course not, it is ridiculous to assume I did. A player receives information through an explanation. He is entitled to use this info for his own actions. He is also entitled to know the partnership agreements of his opponents. When those opponents become assumed declaring side they should inform that player about those agreements, which makes it possible to anticipate on a misunderstanding. L21 deals with such a case and B1 clearly tells that for example a last pass closing the auction may be substituted by a double. My these is that lack of such (obliged) information, which discloses the misunderstanding, should not put the defending side in a worse position than the side that got that information. This means that an adjusted score should be comparable with the score reached at the table were the offending side corrected the MI, as it should. ton From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jul 24 11:53:41 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:53:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_12B1?= In-Reply-To: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> I would like to draw attention to the incomplete and misleading quote of Law 12B1 below. It does _not_ say "the TD is asked to award an adjusted score on what would have happened at the table absent the infraction". It says "_damage_ exists when because of _an_ infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would habe been the expectation had the infraction not occurred [...]". As there are 2 infractions in the discussed thread (1st MI and 2nd failure to comply with Law 20F5bii) the TD has to apply Law 12B1 for each single infraction (see also the (at the moment dormant) discussion about multiple revokes in the same suit). So I vote for interpretation three: The infraction refers to the wrong explanation _and_ the absence of the correction (and both separately) and the TD has to measure and redress the damage for each occurrence. Peter From: Herman De Wael > I would like to draw attention to Law 12B1, in specific one important > phrase in that law: > > ... had the infraction not occurred ... > > The TD is asked to award an adjusted score based on what would have > happened at the table absent the infraction. > > There seem to be two different interpretations about this phrase, and > I guess this is the origin of the recent problems we are having: > > interpretation one: > > The infraction refers to the wrong explanation. If the infraction does > not occur, the non-offending side get a correct explanation, _in stead > of_ the wrong one. > > interpretation two: > > The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. If the > infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get a correct > explanation, _in addition to_ the wrong one. > > I believe both interpretations have some merit, and I think that many > of the harsh words are because people only consider the single > interpretation that they believe to be the correct one, hence such > sentences as "the laws are clear". > > I think the WBFLC should, possibly in S?o Paulo, issue a statement > about this effect. > > Meanwhile, I think the readers of blml should vote on which > interpretation they prefer. > > I shall not present my vote now, although you might guess which one it > is. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 24 12:23:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:23:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: <20090723122530.BAA86990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A685E75.6090908@ulb.ac.be><4A686615.5060806@t-online.de> <4A6978AB.5000305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001c01ca0c48$db496780$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Sorry, but you didn't understand my example. Let me state it more precisely. 1H 3H 4H (no alert) If 3H was alertable (weak) in their system, then there is MI, rectification before the lead (let's hope so) and possible reopening of the bidding, and possible speculative double. < +=+ Reopen the auction if the final pass is based upon misinformation. Find out about this; do not assume that it was even if misinformation exists. The bidder of 4H may have his systemic values even if he has failed to alert an alertable 3H bid. Look carefully at all the facts. Do not jump in with assumptions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Jul 24 12:52:05 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:52:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <4A6977D7.7080106@skynet.be> <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <000001ca0c4c$c92392c0$5b6ab840$@com> Well, players will argue thus: "because the screen was this way round and all I heard was a correct explanation, I did so-and-so; but if the screen had been the other way round and I'd heard the misexplanation given to my partner, I would not have done so-and-so." That argument has no force playing with screens. But without them? David Burn London, England From blml at arcor.de Fri Jul 24 13:24:42 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:24:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6977D7.7080106@skynet.be> References: <4A6977D7.7080106@skynet.be> <4A696D8E.4020205@skynet.be> <20090723133107.BD2B9990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> <22640481.1248424580784.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <15076234.1248434682456.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> ton wrote: > >>> > >>> (no alert) > >>> > >>> If 3H was alertable (weak) in their system, then there is MI, rectification > >>> before the lead (let's hope so) and possible reopening of the bidding, and > >>> possible speculative double. > >>> If 3H was a misbid and they're too high too, but the misunderstanding will > >>> never be revealed,. with possible differing consequences. > >>> > >>> So, I repeat : it is possible that, following TFLB's prescripts, the > >>> misunderstanding becomes apparent at one table and not at the other. > >>> > >>> Whence you shouldn't take this as an argument. Which doesn't say you're > >>> wrong globally; > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> > >>> Alain > >>> > >>> ton: > >>> > >>> I am afraid I did understand your example; with the conclusion that it had > >>> nothing to do with my contribution. Which is a pity if it was meant to be a > >>> reaction. > >>> > >>> I did not talk about misunderstandings, though there were lot of those > in my > >>> example, but about MI being an infraction. > >>> > >> No Ton, you did not talk about misunderstandings, but we were. > >> Your view is that opponents are entitled (in some cases) to both the > >> real system and the one the player thought he was playing. That is a > >> misunderstanding. We use "the knowledge of a misunderstanding" as a > >> shortcut for saying the same thing. > > > > Herman, you are being Herman again. > > > > Of course. > > > Opponents are entitled, at all times, to correct and complete information about > > the actual partnershipt agreements. I have not seen anybody OTHER THANYOURSELF > > claim that opponents are entitled to information about the system a player thought they were playing. > > Nor do I know of any basis in the law for that. > > > > Of course they are not. And yet Ton insists that when ruling, an > opponent is entitled to know both the real system and the one the player > thought it was. > > This is not my interpretation, but Ton's. No, it is your interpretation. Ton is a bit grumpy, but he did not write enything like that. Thomas Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 14:11:20 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:11:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> ton wrote: > Herman: > > Of course they are not. And yet Ton insists that when ruling, an opponent is > entitled to know both the real system and the one the player thought it was. > > This is not my interpretation, but Ton's. > > ton: > > I am sorry but I do not know a better word than 'stupid' for your (Herman) > behaviour. This reaction is not meant to try to get you on the right track > but is directed to the few readers who still tend to take you seriously. > > The statement Herman gives above has nothing to do with what I have ever > said. Of course not, it is ridiculous to assume I did. > Yes it is precisely the ruling you set out once again below. You award to an opponent the score he would have got if he had known both the right _and_ the wrong information. That is what you do. I would like to award a different ruling, based on the sole knowledge of the correct system. I believe that a player is not entitled to know the "wrong" explanation. Since you rule the other direction, it follows that you feel the opponent _is_ entitled to the "wrong" explanation. You may not like that way of presenting things, but it follows logically from the ruling you are making. Now in this case I am not saying that your ruling is incorrect. Indeed when the opponent breaks his obligation to correct the explanation at such a time that a change of call is still possible, then we must perforce put the opponents back into the position the laws prescribe. So in fact it is not Ton, but the laws who say that in this situation, one opponent (only one) is in fact entitled to both the right and the wrong information. I believe that situation is wrong, and I suggest that the WBF changes the law so that no call can be changed after a correction during the correction period. But that is just my opinion. > A player receives information through an explanation. He is entitled to use > this info for his own actions. No Ton, that is not correct. He is "allowed" to use that information. He is not "entitled" to it, in the sense that he cannot claim damage for the absence of it. Please understand that this information is not the "system" but "what the explainer believes the system is". In most cases the two are the same, but when they are not, you can only say that the opponent is entitled to the "system" not to "what the explainer believes the system is". That is the main part of our discussion. Now yet again, in the one example you give, the opponent, by law, receives both explanations, and at the time when he can still use both. But in the main sequence of events, this "what the explainer believes the system is" and "the system" are not available at the same time. Our discussion is whether the player has the right to have both explanations at the time of our ruling. I believe not. > He is also entitled to know the partnership > agreements of his opponents. When those opponents become assumed declaring > side they should inform that player about those agreements, which makes it > possible to anticipate on a misunderstanding. L21 deals with such a case and > B1 clearly tells that for example a last pass closing the auction may be > substituted by a double. > > My these is that lack of such (obliged) information, which discloses the > misunderstanding, should not put the defending side in a worse position than > the side that got that information. > And you are right under the current law. But it is only one exceptional case (only one call by one opponent). In all the other cases, the change of call will be effected by the TD. The question we are asking is whether the TD shall take into account both explanations or only the correct one? > This means that an adjusted score should be comparable with the score > reached at the table were the offending side corrected the MI, as it should. > > > ton > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 14:13:03 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:13:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <15076234.1248434682456.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <4A6977D7.7080106@skynet.be> <4A696D8E.4020205@skynet.be> <20090723133107.BD2B9990C15A@relay2.webreus.nl> <22640481.1248424580784.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <15076234.1248434682456.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A69A54F.4070103@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> This is not my interpretation, but Ton's. > > No, it is your interpretation. Ton is a bit grumpy, but he > did not write enything like that. > Well, it is certainly not my interpretation. You criticized me for making it, when all I was doing was (potentially mis-)ascribing an interpretation to Ton. > > Thomas > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 14:17:03 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:17:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 12B1 In-Reply-To: <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > I would like to draw attention to the incomplete and > misleading quote of Law 12B1 below. > I agree that it was incomplete - as to misleading, let's see. > It does _not_ say "the TD is asked to award an adjusted > score on what would have happened at the table absent > the infraction". > It says "_damage_ exists when because of _an_ > infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less > favourable than would habe been the expectation had > the infraction not occurred [...]". > OK Peter, then will you tell me where in the lawbook is stated how the TD shall decide on his adjustment? Nowhere, that's where it is. But rather than overcritizing the lawbook, I have picked the sentence which most closely resembles what the TDs do in practice. Care to discuss that? > As there are 2 infractions in the discussed thread (1st There is no discussed thread. This is a new thread. I am talking about MI rulings in general, not the specific case Ton has brought up. There is therefore only one infraction, and one ruling to be made. Would you care to cast a vote based on that premise? > MI and 2nd failure to comply with Law 20F5bii) the TD > has to apply Law 12B1 for each single infraction (see > also the (at the moment dormant) discussion about > multiple revokes in the same suit). > > So I vote for interpretation three: > The infraction refers to the wrong explanation _and_ > the absence of the correction (and both separately) > and the TD has to measure and redress the damage > for each occurrence. > > Peter > Herman. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jul 24 15:08:43 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:08:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_12B1?= In-Reply-To: <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1MUKVv-1qqfSK0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Peter Eidt wrote: > > I would like to draw attention to the incomplete and > > misleading quote of Law 12B1 below. > > > > I agree that it was incomplete - as to misleading, let's see. > > > It does _not_ say "the TD is asked to award an adjusted > > score on what would have happened at the table absent > > the infraction". > > It says "_damage_ exists when because of _an_ > > infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less > > favourable than would habe been the expectation had > > the infraction not occurred [...]". > > > > OK Peter, then will you tell me where in the lawbook is stated how the > TD shall decide on his adjustment? Nowhere, that's where it is. > But rather than overcritizing the lawbook, I have picked the sentence > which most closely resembles what the TDs do in practice. Care to > discuss that? > > > > As there are 2 infractions in the discussed thread (1st > > There is no discussed thread. This is a new thread. I am talking about > MI rulings in general, not the specific case Ton has brought up. > There is therefore only one infraction, and one ruling to be made. > > Would you care to cast a vote based on that premise? snipping your own originial post does not nullify it: >>> interpretation one: >>> >>> The infraction refers to the wrong explanation. If the infraction does >>> not occur, the non-offending side get a correct explanation, _in stead >>> of_ the wrong one. >>> >>> interpretation two: >>> >>> The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. If the >>> infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get a correct >>> explanation, _in addition to_ the wrong one. obviously you talk about two infractions (MI _and_ absence of correct explanation) and therefore I've no need to cast anything. Do not twist "arguments" every second to please your thoughts. > > MI and 2nd failure to comply with Law 20F5bii) the TD > > has to apply Law 12B1 for each single infraction (see > > also the (at the moment dormant) discussion about > > multiple revokes in the same suit). > > > > So I vote for interpretation three: > > The infraction refers to the wrong explanation _and_ > > the absence of the correction (and both separately) > > and the TD has to measure and redress the damage > > for each occurrence. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 24 15:22:50 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:22:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090724083619.65A28990C160@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090724083619.65A28990C160@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:36:20 -0400, ton wrote: > > Because there is a misunderstanding in both cases and according to some, > that misunderstanding is information to which the opponents are entitled > to. > But only in the case of MI, not in the case of misbid. Alain and I > believe > this is wrong. Either the knowledge of the misunderstanding is entitled > to > opponents in both instances, or it is in neither. > > Herman. > > ton: > Let me assume that you Herman really want to learn something, which is > not > likely but still possible. This has been a great learning experience for me. Thanks to Herman for asking the question. I think Herman did a good job of structuring the question. Thanks to Ton for answering. I really liked Ton's explanation. Ton, keep those answers coming! > > So tell me where in the laws you find any clue to assume that a player is > entitled to be informed that a misbid has been made? > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri Jul 24 14:44:17 2009 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:44:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] MI - with extras In-Reply-To: <4A681326.9050803@skynet.be> References: <4A681326.9050803@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:37:10 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > I find this ruling very disturbing. > For a CTD to give a ruling so far removed from previous practice _AND_ > to bully the players out of appealing, saying that it will be without > merit, is very grave indeed. > I hope the facts, when told by the directorial staff, are far from this > one-sided account. > So do I. Petrus > Herman. > > Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >> Setting: European Youth Team Championships (screens are in use) >> >> Board 11. Dealer South. None Vulnerable. >> ? K J 8 2 >> ? Q 9 5 4 3 >> ? - >> ? J 7 5 4 >> >> ? T 9 7 4 ? A Q 6 >> ? K 6 ? T >> ? K J 6 3 ? A Q 9 7 5 2 >> ? A Q 3 ? T 9 6 >> >> ? 5 3 >> ? A J 8 7 2 >> ? T 8 4 >> ? K 8 2 >> >> South West North East >> P 1C 2C 2S >> 3H 4S P 5D >> P 5H P 5S >> AP >> >> The facts (as reported to me by East - so maybe the reality is somewhat >> different): >> >> N alerted 2C as "at least 4 spades and 5 hearts". East alerted 2S as >> "game >> forcing with diamonds". >> S alerted 2C, but changed his explanation from "majors" to "not sure, >> but >> I think it is natural". Thereafter West alerted 5D as a cue bid, while >> East alerted 4S and 5H as diamond support and control-showing. >> NS's CC supports North's explanation. >> The result was 5S-2. >> >> After the hand, when East asked West about his bidding, the different >> explanations came to light and East called the TD. >> >> The TD let the score stand for both sides, as West should have called >> immediately when South changed his explanation, or consulted the CC and >> called upon noticing the difference. Therefore, West had not done enough >> to protect his rights. >> The CTD strongly advised against appealing, calling it a clear-cut >> decision and an appeal without merit. He explained that, had the TD been >> called immediately, South would have been sent away from the table with >> North explaining his bid to both opponents. Althogh he called this >> "standard procedure", it seems to be at odds with section 3.2 of the >> CoC: >> "c) At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion >> of >> play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the >> meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play >> period >> should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised >> after >> the response has been made." >> >> What is your learned opinion? >> >> Regards, >> Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jul 24 15:41:48 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:41:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6978AB.5000305@ulb.ac.be> References: <20090723122530.BAA86990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A685E75.6090908@ulb.ac.be> <4A686615.5060806@t-online.de> <4A6978AB.5000305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A69BA1C.7050509@t-online.de> Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Well, if "understanding something else than what was intended" isn't the > definition of "misunderstanding", I'll need a refresher course on both > English and message theory. I don't know about message theory, but if you lump together cases where sender got his wires crossed with cases where receiver doesn't know what he's doing, what do you expect? Case A: Sender gets it right, receiver gets it wrong. Receiver does not understand what sender says. Case B: Vice versa. Receiver understands perfectly well what sender _says_, just not what he intended to say. If I were to say to you: "Let's have a rubber on Saturday", when in fact I meant to play on Sunday, would we have a misunderstanding? Indeed not, IMO, it would only be a case of me talking rubbish. So if you showed up on Saturday you would have understood me quite well. Sadly, I didn't know what I was talking. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that one is an infraction, while the other is not, how can you say that this is the same? No discussion can lead anywhere when you insist on calling both cases "misunderstandings". Best regards Matthias > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri Jul 24 14:49:28 2009 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:49:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] MI - with extras In-Reply-To: <4A684ED2.8020409@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A684ED2.8020409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:51:46 +0200, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Petrus Schuster OSB a ?crit : >> Setting: European Youth Team Championships (screens are in use) >> >> Board 11. Dealer South. None Vulnerable. >> ? K J 8 2 >> ? Q 9 5 4 3 >> ? - >> ? J 7 5 4 >> >> ? T 9 7 4 ? A Q 6 >> ? K 6 ? T >> ? K J 6 3 ? A Q 9 7 5 2 >> ? A Q 3 ? T 9 6 >> >> ? 5 3 >> ? A J 8 7 2 >> ? T 8 4 >> ? K 8 2 >> >> South West North East >> P 1C 2C 2S >> 3H 4S P 5D >> P 5H P 5S >> AP >> >> The facts (as reported to me by East - so maybe the reality is somewhat >> different): >> >> N alerted 2C as "at least 4 spades and 5 hearts". East alerted 2S as >> "game >> forcing with diamonds". >> S alerted 2C, but changed his explanation from "majors" to "not sure, >> but >> I think it is natural". Thereafter West alerted 5D as a cue bid, while >> East alerted 4S and 5H as diamond support and control-showing. >> NS's CC supports North's explanation. >> The result was 5S-2. >> >> After the hand, when East asked West about his bidding, the different >> explanations came to light and East called the TD. >> >> The TD let the score stand for both sides, as West should have called >> immediately when South changed his explanation, or consulted the CC and >> called upon noticing the difference. Therefore, West had not done enough >> to protect his rights. >> The CTD strongly advised against appealing, calling it a clear-cut >> decision and an appeal without merit. He explained that, had the TD been >> called immediately, South would have been sent away from the table with >> North explaining his bid to both opponents. Althogh he called this >> "standard procedure", it seems to be at odds with section 3.2 of the >> CoC: >> "c) At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion >> of >> play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the >> meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play >> period >> should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised >> after >> the response has been made." >> >> What is your learned opinion? >> > The TD is wrong. But only as the facts are stated here, of course. > > First, a case of 'failed to pretect yourself' will never be so obvious > as to cause an 'appeal without merit' decision. > > Second, I like the mechanism of calling one player away from the talbe, > I'd apply it happily in some caes, but it's not 100% kosher and you > can't ask them to know you'll be prone to do so and take steps to allow > it to happen. They find it difficult enough to understand the laws as > they stand. While I agree with you in general, I wonder if it is such a good idea when using screens. It tranmits an awful amount of UI between the OS which is what screens are meant to prevent. > > While I understand the view that West should have smelled the rat, there > is always the problem that calling the TD will give the 2C bidder the > information that a misunderstanding by his side is possible. Whence > doing so would perhaps put EW at a disadvantage and/or diminish the > deal's playability. > > Also, we're not told *when* South changed his mind. and this could > change the possible procedures. As far as I am told by East, while explaining the meaning of 2C. But I will try to ask West as well. Regards, Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 24 15:50:29 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:50:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: References: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> <4A682108.60403@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:46:01 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > On 23 Jul 2009, at 09:36, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>> >>> One swallow doth not make a summer. >>> >> >> I have seen other swallows already. > > Maybe you would like to point them out to us, because the one example > we have here seems (as reported) to be an example of poor directing > in other respects also. This is from Monday; Alain hijacked one of the threads called Semicentenary Semicelebration. There were specific questions, but I think there is an implied question was if EW were damaged by the lack of an alert. N E S W 1NT X 2H p p 3C 3S p p p Double : 1-suited (not alertable) 2H : intended as transfer. Unclear whether it is in NS's system. Not alerted. South in fact had KQJxxx of spades. The general answer (given twice) was for no damage. That's what the AC ruled. But Grattan: "There seems to be a suggestion that the question of East's passing 2H did not arise, but the question must have been apparent to the Director and I am wondering whether he failed to explore it (without putting words into East's mouth)." From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jul 24 16:09:07 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:09:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Yes it is precisely the ruling you set out once again below. You award > to an opponent the score he would have got if he had known both the > right _and_ the wrong information. That is what you do. I would like to > award a different ruling, based on the sole knowledge of the correct > system. I believe that a player is not entitled to know the "wrong" > explanation. Brilliant! Someone gives me a wrong explanation, and now I am under L16 restrictions, because this is UI to me, yes? Any information is either AI or UI. If it is not AI, it must be UI. So I give you an explanation, then correct myself (I have to, as soon as I realize I misinformed you). Now you are under UI restrictions. This may not help on every hand, but you can be sure that the Probst cheat (and I hope you are reading this, John, all the best to you) would find uses for this if it were made into law. Now that I come to think of it, how do you propose to rule the cases where - due to differences in the wrong explanations - one non-offending player may be even more restricted than the other, because he got more UI than another? Herman, you surpassed yourself. Next defender's unestablished revoke card or other penalty cards will be UI to me, too, because other players at different tables do not have that information. Too bad, isn't it? Somebody goofs, his score usually decreases, with a reciprocal increase in the score of his opponent. Such things happen, and they will continue to happen. Do you want to discuss them all out of existence? Wouldn't it be better for the game if the players were to muster some additional concentration, avoiding such mishaps, or, absent the needed willpower after a hard days work, still playing at the club despite mental exhaustion, we were to bear the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and take it like men? (Apologies to female readers for this figure of speech) Where is the problem? Someone gives MI. This may be a wrong alert, nobody asking, or it may be some convoluted "explanation" about a system nobody is playing at the moment. Whatever wrong information I got, I may try to draw my conclusions. Since I know (from the correction) that this info is false, I do so at my own risk. I may not (after the correction) ask any questions about the wrong information, as it is not part of the system, and not an alternative call or something. No more, no less. Best regards Matthias From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 24 16:25:40 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:25:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] MI - with extras In-Reply-To: References: <4A684ED2.8020409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A69C464.1090405@ulb.ac.be> Petrus Schuster OSB a ?crit : >> >> Second, I like the mechanism of calling one player away from the talbe, >> I'd apply it happily in some caes, but it's not 100% kosher and you >> can't ask them to know you'll be prone to do so and take steps to allow >> it to happen. They find it difficult enough to understand the laws as >> they stand. >> > > While I agree with you in general, I wonder if it is such a good idea when > using screens. It tranmits an awful amount of UI between the OS which is > what screens are meant to prevent. > > AG : there are times when the TD is confident enough that doing so is less harmful to the correct unfolding of the deal and less unbalancing on the field's scores than letting them sweat with the problem. I mean, what's more damaging ? Creating UI or snafuing the deal once and for all ? Let him decide it's one of those occasions. But I agree with your estimation of the risk. >> While I understand the view that West should have smelled the rat, there >> is always the problem that calling the TD will give the 2C bidder the >> information that a misunderstanding by his side is possible. Whence >> doing so would perhaps put EW at a disadvantage and/or diminish the >> deal's playability. >> >> Also, we're not told *when* South changed his mind. and this could >> change the possible procedures. >> > > As far as I am told by East, while explaining the meaning of 2C. But I > will try to ask West as well. > Perhaps, in such a case, West should be allowed to ask North what explanation he had given to East. This has the same effect as the TD's send-away action, but it's West's decision, so that the snag you were mentioning shrinks. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 24 16:34:34 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:34:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A69BA1C.7050509@t-online.de> References: <20090723122530.BAA86990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A685E75.6090908@ulb.ac.be> <4A686615.5060806@t-online.de> <4A6978AB.5000305@ulb.ac.be> <4A69BA1C.7050509@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A69C67A.8020906@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > > >> Well, if "understanding something else than what was intended" isn't the >> definition of "misunderstanding", I'll need a refresher course on both >> English and message theory. >> > > I don't know about message theory, but if you lump together cases where > sender got his wires crossed with cases where receiver doesn't know what > he's doing, what do you expect? > > Case A: Sender gets it right, receiver gets it wrong. Receiver does not > understand what sender says. > > Case B: Vice versa. Receiver understands perfectly well what sender > _says_, just not what he intended to say. If I were to say to you: > "Let's have a rubber on Saturday", when in fact I meant to play on > Sunday, would we have a misunderstanding? Indeed not, IMO, it would > only be a case of me talking rubbish. Aha ! You mean a slip of the tongue has nothing to do with a misunderstanding ? Agreed. But that's not the case we're talking of. We're more in the case where you wrognly believe 'saturday' means 'Sonntag', which will create a misunderstanding. It always does when two persons give different meanings to a word. Looks like there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of 'misunderstanding'. > So if you showed up on Saturday > you would have understood me quite well. Sadly, I didn't know what I was > talking. > > Leaving aside for a moment the fact that one is an infraction, while the > other is not, how can you say that this is the same? No discussion can > lead anywhere when you insist on calling both cases "misunderstandings". > I'm sorry, Sir, but I do insist. Whether the origin of the misunderstanding is in a false belief from sender's part or from reciever's part doesn't change much to the fact that a misunderstanding it is. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 24 16:42:20 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:42:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: References: <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> <4A682108.60403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A69C84C.6030806@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:46:01 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > > >> On 23 Jul 2009, at 09:36, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >>> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>> >>>> One swallow doth not make a summer. >>>> >>>> >>> I have seen other swallows already. >>> >> Maybe you would like to point them out to us, because the one example >> we have here seems (as reported) to be an example of poor directing >> in other respects also. >> > > > This is from Monday; Alain hijacked one of the threads called > Semicentenary Semicelebration. I'm sorry for that, Sir, but sending the question as an independent thread didn't work. I got it backbounced twice, so I had to resort to 'hijacking'. > There were specific questions, but I think > there is an implied question was if EW were damaged by the lack of an > alert. > > N E S W > > 1NT X 2H p > p 3C 3S p > p p > > Double : 1-suited (not alertable) > 2H : intended as transfer. Unclear whether it is in NS's system. Not > alerted. South in fact had KQJxxx of spades. > > > The general answer (given twice) was for no damage. That's what the AC > ruled. But Grattan: "There seems to be a suggestion that the question of > East's passing 2H did not arise, but the question must have been apparent > to the Director and I am wondering whether he failed to explore it > (without putting words into East's mouth)." > Grattan has made an interesting point here. The question of passing 2H did arise, but only in terms of "was 3C obvious over a spade bid, as over a heart bid ?", with positive answer, not in terms of "what would East have done if he knew there had been a misunderstanding ?" Which apparently raises the question of "is East allowed to know there has been a misunderstanding ?", which seems not to be settled yet. Anyway, that's not what EW challenged. And, in case you want to know, I was neither an involved player nor a member of the AC. It just happens that West complained to me about the decision. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Fri Jul 24 16:57:39 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:57:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A69C84C.6030806@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A69C84C.6030806@ulb.ac.be> <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> <4A682108.60403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <31445142.1248447459388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:46:01 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > > wrote: > > > > > >> On 23 Jul 2009, at 09:36, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >>> > >>>> One swallow doth not make a summer. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> I have seen other swallows already. > >>> > >> Maybe you would like to point them out to us, because the one example > >> we have here seems (as reported) to be an example of poor directing > >> in other respects also. > >> > > > > > > This is from Monday; Alain hijacked one of the threads called > > Semicentenary Semicelebration. > I'm sorry for that, Sir, but sending the question as an independent > thread didn't work. I got it backbounced twice, so I had to resort to > 'hijacking'. > > > There were specific questions, but I think > > there is an implied question was if EW were damaged by the lack of an > > alert. > > > > N E S W > > > > 1NT X 2H p > > p 3C 3S p > > p p > > > > Double : 1-suited (not alertable) > > 2H : intended as transfer. Unclear whether it is in NS's system. Not > > alerted. South in fact had KQJxxx of spades. > > > > > > The general answer (given twice) was for no damage. That's what the AC > > ruled. But Grattan: "There seems to be a suggestion that the question of > > > East's passing 2H did not arise, but the question must have been apparent > > > to the Director and I am wondering whether he failed to explore it > > (without putting words into East's mouth)." > > > Grattan has made an interesting point here. > The question of passing 2H did arise, but only in terms of "was 3C > obvious over a spade bid, as over a heart bid ?", with positive answer, > not in terms of "what would East have done if he knew there had been a > misunderstanding ?" > Which apparently raises the question of "is East allowed to know there > has been a misunderstanding ?", which seems not to be settled yet. Consider the case where the OS provides conventions cards which contain the correct partnership agreements. Then, as above, the following happens: N E S W 1NT X 2H p p 2H is intended as transfer, systematically is transfer, and N forgets, does not alert 2H, and passes. Now E looks into opponents' convention cards, notices that it states "transfer over 1NT, even after competition and penalty doubles". E hereby gets the correct information, and thus chances a pass (and provided that the information on the CC is correct, he does so at his own risk). Why should this N/S pair that provides correct information on their convention card be put into a worse situation than a N/S pair that provides MI, and then fails to correct the MI in time? Thomas Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 17:37:11 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:37:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <31445142.1248447459388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <4A69C84C.6030806@ulb.ac.be> <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> <4A682108.60403@skynet.be> <31445142.1248447459388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A69D527.2030307@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:46:01 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 23 Jul 2009, at 09:36, Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> One swallow doth not make a summer. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I have seen other swallows already. >>>>> >>>> Maybe you would like to point them out to us, because the one example >>>> we have here seems (as reported) to be an example of poor directing >>>> in other respects also. >>>> >>> >>> This is from Monday; Alain hijacked one of the threads called >>> Semicentenary Semicelebration. >> I'm sorry for that, Sir, but sending the question as an independent >> thread didn't work. I got it backbounced twice, so I had to resort to >> 'hijacking'. >> >>> There were specific questions, but I think >>> there is an implied question was if EW were damaged by the lack of an >>> alert. >>> >>> N E S W >>> >>> 1NT X 2H p >>> p 3C 3S p >>> p p >>> >>> Double : 1-suited (not alertable) >>> 2H : intended as transfer. Unclear whether it is in NS's system. Not >>> alerted. South in fact had KQJxxx of spades. >>> >>> >>> The general answer (given twice) was for no damage. That's what the AC >>> ruled. But Grattan: "There seems to be a suggestion that the question of >>> East's passing 2H did not arise, but the question must have been apparent >>> to the Director and I am wondering whether he failed to explore it >>> (without putting words into East's mouth)." >>> >> Grattan has made an interesting point here. >> The question of passing 2H did arise, but only in terms of "was 3C >> obvious over a spade bid, as over a heart bid ?", with positive answer, >> not in terms of "what would East have done if he knew there had been a >> misunderstanding ?" >> Which apparently raises the question of "is East allowed to know there >> has been a misunderstanding ?", which seems not to be settled yet. > > Consider the case where the OS provides conventions cards > which contain the correct partnership agreements. > > Then, as above, the following happens: > > N E S W > > 1NT X 2H p > p > > 2H is intended as transfer, systematically is transfer, and N forgets, > does not alert 2H, and passes. > > Now E looks into opponents' convention cards, notices that > it states "transfer over 1NT, even after competition and penalty doubles". > E hereby gets the correct information, and thus > chances a pass (and provided that the information on the CC is correct, > he does so at his own risk). > > Why should this N/S pair that provides correct information > on their convention card be put into a worse situation than > a N/S pair that provides MI, and then fails to correct the MI in time? > > > Thomas > Thomas makes a very valid point here: we should look at these cases with a 'Kaplan engine', a hypothetical machine that provides the opponents with the correct information. In this case, it is apparent, from North's pass, that a mistake has taken place. East is allowed a small gamble and pass. In the (badly constructed, I agree) 1He-3He-4He case, the mistake is not obvious from the 4He bid. I don't believe east-west are entitled to know that there has been a misunderstanding. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 17:39:47 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:39:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> Yes it is precisely the ruling you set out once again below. You award >> to an opponent the score he would have got if he had known both the >> right _and_ the wrong information. That is what you do. I would like to >> award a different ruling, based on the sole knowledge of the correct >> system. I believe that a player is not entitled to know the "wrong" >> explanation. > > Brilliant! Someone gives me a wrong explanation, and now I am under L16 > restrictions, because this is UI to me, yes? > No Matthias. When I shall rule, I shall try and decide what you would have done with the correct information. But not with the right _and_ the wrong information. > Any information is either AI or UI. If it is not AI, it must be UI. So I > give you an explanation, then correct myself (I have to, as soon as I > realize I misinformed you). Now you are under UI restrictions. This may > not help on every hand, but you can be sure that the Probst cheat (and I > hope you are reading this, John, all the best to you) would find uses > for this if it were made into law. > > Now that I come to think of it, how do you propose to rule the cases > where - due to differences in the wrong explanations - one non-offending > player may be even more restricted than the other, because he got more > UI than another? > > Herman, you surpassed yourself. > Why? You are the one talking of UI here. I never did. It is you who has surpassed me. (the rest is even more strange and thus snipped) Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 24 18:13:22 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:13:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 12B1 In-Reply-To: <1MUKVv-1qqfSK0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> <1MUKVv-1qqfSK0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A69DDA2.6050407@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> Peter Eidt wrote: >>> I would like to draw attention to the incomplete and >>> misleading quote of Law 12B1 below. >>> >> I agree that it was incomplete - as to misleading, let's see. >> >>> It does _not_ say "the TD is asked to award an adjusted >>> score on what would have happened at the table absent >>> the infraction". >>> It says "_damage_ exists when because of _an_ >>> infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less >>> favourable than would habe been the expectation had >>> the infraction not occurred [...]". >>> >> OK Peter, then will you tell me where in the lawbook is stated how the >> TD shall decide on his adjustment? Nowhere, that's where it is. >> But rather than overcritizing the lawbook, I have picked the sentence >> which most closely resembles what the TDs do in practice. Care to >> discuss that? >> >> >>> As there are 2 infractions in the discussed thread (1st >> There is no discussed thread. This is a new thread. I am talking about >> MI rulings in general, not the specific case Ton has brought up. >> There is therefore only one infraction, and one ruling to be made. >> >> Would you care to cast a vote based on that premise? > > snipping your own originial post does not nullify it: > >>>> interpretation one: >>>> >>>> The infraction refers to the wrong explanation. If the infraction > does >>>> not occur, the non-offending side get a correct explanation, _in > stead >>>> of_ the wrong one. >>>> >>>> interpretation two: >>>> >>>> The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. If > the >>>> infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get a correct >>>> explanation, _in addition to_ the wrong one. > > obviously you talk about two infractions (MI _and_ absence > of correct explanation) and therefore I've no need to cast > anything. > No Pdeter, those are not two infractions, it is only one. It is just that there are two interpretations. If you cannot understand my posts, then please don't criticize them. > Do not twist "arguments" every second to please > your thoughts. It is you who are twisting arguments. It is you who was talking about two infractions, and when I corrected you about the second infraction, you invent a new second infraction. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 24 18:14:56 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:14:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <31445142.1248447459388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <4A69C84C.6030806@ulb.ac.be> <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> <4A682108.60403@skynet.be> <31445142.1248447459388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A69DE00.9060503@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Consider the case where the OS provides conventions cards > which contain the correct partnership agreements. > > Then, as above, the following happens: > > N E S W > > 1NT X 2H p > p > > 2H is intended as transfer, systematically is transfer, and N forgets, > does not alert 2H, and passes. > > Now E looks into opponents' convention cards, notices that > it states "transfer over 1NT, even after competition and penalty doubles". > E hereby gets the correct information, and thus > chances a pass (and provided that the information on the CC is correct, > he does so at his own risk). > > Why should this N/S pair that provides correct information > on their convention card be put into a worse situation than > a N/S pair that provides MI, and then fails to correct the MI in time? > AG : important point indeed. And here we have to put the blame on the main culprit in this case : the regulations. South was a guy of perfect ethics. He knew what the double meant, so (according to the majority opinion on blml) he didn't dare to ask for partner's profit North, a lesser player, wouldn't have imagined that the double was artificial, as it wasn't alerted. The point is : artificial doubles aren't alertable. And their SC mentions 'system on on artificial doubles'. Notice that, on consulting the SC, East couldn't be sure that his double was understood, whence he couldn't know whether 2H was a transfer. All of this because there is a stupid regulation that disallows to alert the double. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 24 18:22:43 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:22:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A69D527.2030307@skynet.be> References: <4A69C84C.6030806@ulb.ac.be> <4A681A0E.8060309@skynet.be> <4A682108.60403@skynet.be> <31445142.1248447459388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <4A69D527.2030307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A69DFD3.8050806@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > Thomas makes a very valid point here: we should look at these cases with > a 'Kaplan engine', a hypothetical machine that provides the opponents > with the correct information. > In this case, it is apparent, from North's pass, that a mistake has > taken place. East is allowed a small gamble and pass. > In the (badly constructed, I agree) 1He-3He-4He case, the mistake is not > obvious from the 4He bid. I don't believe east-west are entitled to know > that there has been a misunderstanding. > AG : agree with the distinguo. When the information doesn't come from the explanations but from other table events, we all agree that EW are entitled to it. Notice that, with only the Kaplan engine and the pass, the misunderstanding is only supposed ; North could have psyched his 1NT opening with long hearts. Strangely enough, EW would only score 50 or 100 against 2H, meaning that EW would score below average (130, or 300 vs 4S, is popular). Best regards Alain From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jul 24 18:21:45 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:21:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_12B1?= In-Reply-To: <4A69DDA2.6050407@skynet.be> References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> <1MUKVv-1qqfSK0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <4A69DDA2.6050407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1MUNWj-1xH7K40@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Peter Eidt wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > > interpretation two: > > > The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. > > > If the infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get a > > > correct explanation, _in addition to_ the wrong one. one infraction: wrong explanation. Otherwise there could not have been a correct explanation _in addition to_ the wrong one. one infraction: absence of a correction in due time. Otherwise the non-offending side would have got a correct explanation and the above interpretation would have no basis. one infraction plus one infraction make 2 infractions q.e.d. > > obviously you talk about two infractions (MI _and_ absence > > of correct explanation) and therefore I've no need to cast > > anything. > > > > No Pdeter, those are not two infractions, it is only one. > It is just that there are two interpretations. > If you cannot understand my posts, then please don't criticize them. > > > Do not twist "arguments" every second to please > > your thoughts. > > It is you who are twisting arguments. It is you who was talking about > two infractions, and when I corrected you about the second infraction, > you invent a new second infraction. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 24 20:03:31 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:03:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 12B1 In-Reply-To: <1MUNWj-1xH7K40@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> <1MUKVv-1qqfSK0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <4A69DDA2.6050407@skynet.be> <1MUNWj-1xH7K40@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:21:45 -0400, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> Peter Eidt wrote: >> > From: Herman De Wael >> > > interpretation two: >> > > The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. >> > > If the infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get a >> > > correct explanation, _in addition to_ the wrong one. > > one infraction: wrong explanation. Otherwise there could > not have been a correct explanation _in addition to_ the wrong one. > > one infraction: absence of a correction in due time. Otherwise > the non-offending side would have got a correct explanation > and the above interpretation would have no basis. I think this a very complicated interpretation. Simple: Declarer committed an infraction by misdescribing partner's bid. Had the infraction not occurred -- declarer bid incorrectly but explained the bid correctly -- the defense would not have doubled. Complicated: Declarer simultaneously committed two infractions: misdescribing partner's bid and then failing to immediately correct his mistaken explanation. Presumably as time goes on he commits an infinite number of these second infractions, though in all cases it is the same law that is infracted. To correct, we do not ask what would have happened had their been no infractions (plural). Instead, we ask what would have happened if the first infraction occurred and the subsequent ones did not. I don't think it is fair or appropriate to expect directors to take this second path, when the first is available and works fine. From blml at arcor.de Fri Jul 24 20:28:38 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:28:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Law 12B1 In-Reply-To: References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> <1MUKVv-1qqfSK0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <4A69DDA2.6050407@skynet.be> <1MUNWj-1xH7K40@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <16179996.1248460118934.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:21:45 -0400, Peter Eidt > wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > >> Peter Eidt wrote: > >> > From: Herman De Wael > >> > > interpretation two: > >> > > The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. > >> > > If the infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get a > >> > > correct explanation, _in addition to_ the wrong one. > > > > one infraction: wrong explanation. Otherwise there could > > not have been a correct explanation _in addition to_ the wrong one. > > > > one infraction: absence of a correction in due time. Otherwise > > the non-offending side would have got a correct explanation > > and the above interpretation would have no basis. > > I think this a very complicated interpretation. > > Simple: Declarer committed an infraction by misdescribing partner's bid. > Had the infraction not occurred -- declarer bid incorrectly but explained > the bid correctly -- the defense would not have doubled. > > Complicated: Declarer simultaneously committed two infractions: > misdescribing partner's bid and then failing to immediately correct his > mistaken explanation. Presumably as time goes on he commits an infinite > number of these second infractions, though in all cases it is the same law You might be on the wrong track. The other player commits the second infraction, not the player who gave MI: North provides MI. The auction ends with North or South being declarer. South then fails to correct North's MI before the opening lead is made. Especially, this does not require the director to read N's mind whether he suddenly remembered their system. Thomas Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jul 24 20:32:16 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:32:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_12B1?= In-Reply-To: References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> <1MUKVv-1qqfSK0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <4A69DDA2.6050407@skynet.be> <1MUNWj-1xH7K40@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <1MUPZ2-0Tysc40@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> From: "Robert Frick" > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:21:45 -0400, Peter Eidt > wrote: > > > > From: Herman De Wael > > > Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > From: Herman De Wael > > > > > interpretation two: > > > > > The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. > > > > > If ?the infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get > > > > > a correct explanation, _in addition to_ the wrong one. > > > > > > > > > one infraction: wrong explanation. Otherwise there could > > not have been a correct explanation _in addition to_ the wrong one. > > > > one infraction: absence of a correction in due time. Otherwise the > > non-offending side would have got a correct explanation > > and the above interpretation would have no basis. > > > > I think this a very complicated interpretation. > > Simple: Declarer committed an infraction by misdescribing partner's > bid. > Had the infraction not occurred -- declarer bid incorrectly but > explained the bid correctly -- the defense would not have doubled. > > Complicated: Declarer simultaneously committed two infractions: > misdescribing partner's bid and then failing to immediately correct > his mistaken explanation. Presumably as time goes on he commits an > infinite number of these second infractions, though in all cases it is > the same law that is infracted. > > To correct, we do not ask what would have happened had their been no > infractions (plural). Instead, we ask what would have happened if the > first infraction occurred and the subsequent ones did not. > > I don't think it is fair or appropriate to expect directors to take > this second path, when the first is available and works fine. Totally wrong path, Bob. (Say) declarer midescribed partner's bid and _partner_ did not comply with his Law 20 F5bii obgligation to correct the mistaken explanation after the end of the auction and before the lead. Now there are two singular infractions of different laws. And that's what we are talking about. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jul 25 00:07:15 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:07:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >> >>> Yes it is precisely the ruling you set out once again below. You award >>> to an opponent the score he would have got if he had known both the >>> right _and_ the wrong information. That is what you do. I would like to >>> award a different ruling, based on the sole knowledge of the correct >>> system. I believe that a player is not entitled to know the "wrong" >>> explanation. >> Brilliant! Someone gives me a wrong explanation, and now I am under L16 >> restrictions, because this is UI to me, yes? >> > > No Matthias. When I shall rule, I shall try and decide what you would > have done with the correct information. But not with the right _and_ the > wrong information. Let me get this straight: MI occurs, then is corrected (either by misinformer, or by partner, it doesn't matter, let's just say there was a timely correction). Now the NOS should not be allowed to use the wrong information. Therefore it cannot be AI, as they would be authorized to use that, per definition. Now you say it isn't UI either. What is it, Herman? _What do you call information that is not authorized? Which kinds of information are mentioned in TFLB?_ Hint: the Laws mention two kinds of information, not 3, not 4, and the five is _right out_! And how should anyone handle it? It is obviously impossible to forget this wrong information. So shall the TD review every action of the defenders (upon request by the defending side, sure, but I conservatively estimate the probability of such a request at 99%, as the declaring side could only gain from this, and lose nothing), or do we save the time and just let the TD assign a score? If you want to introduce HI (Herman's information) into the next lawbook, well, that is your privilege. I am not going to wish you luck for that, and in the meantime I am going to use any information the law book says is authorized for me. Matthias P.S. I will read any additional posts in this thread (well, I will try to, but my patience is limited), but may strange afflictions befall my hands if I am to type another word about this.... From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 25 11:52:59 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:52:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be> <4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> You have misunderstood my point, Matthias, and maybe I have misunderstood yours: Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> Brilliant! Someone gives me a wrong explanation, and now I am under L16 >>> restrictions, because this is UI to me, yes? >>> >> No Matthias. When I shall rule, I shall try and decide what you would >> have done with the correct information. But not with the right _and_ the >> wrong information. > > Let me get this straight: MI occurs, then is corrected (either by > misinformer, or by partner, it doesn't matter, let's just say there was > a timely correction). Now the NOS should not be allowed to use the wrong > information. Therefore it cannot be AI, as they would be authorized to > use that, per definition. Now you say it isn't UI either. What is it, > Herman? > If the correction happens at the table, then of course the "wrong" information is AI. What I am talking about is that when giving a ruling, one considers that non-offenders get only the "right" information, not the "right" one and the "wrong" one. Now, and this is Ton's point, when a player realizes he has made a mistake, he has to tell the opponents at the table. In that case, opponents have both the "right" and the "wrong" information, which is AI to them. Whereas if he keeps silent, and lets the TD rule afterwards, then (if that TD is HDW) the opponents will get only the "right" information. That is an inegality which would tempt a Probst cheat from not correcting the information. Therefore, Ton concludes, the opponents should be entitled to both the "right" and the "wrong" information. What Ton fails to see is that there is a second solution to this inegality. The laws could be altered to state that when a player discovers his previous explanation was wrong, he has the option of keeping this hidden from his opponents (of course revealing it at some later time). That way too, there is no inegality any more between a player who realizes he has made a mistake and a Probst cheat who would keep it hidden. My point all along is that the WBF needs to make up its mind. Do we want the "wrong" information to be entitled to the opponents as well as the "right" one. If we do, then we need to think of a whole lot of extra issues, not even touched upon here. If we don't, then we will have to change those few laws making it, at this time, obligatory to reveal things I don't believe the opponents are entitled to. > _What do you call information that is not authorized? Which kinds of > information are mentioned in TFLB?_ > It is not because the words "entitled information" are not to be found in TFLB, that the concept does not exist, does it? > Hint: the Laws mention two kinds of information, not 3, not 4, and the > five is _right out_! > > And how should anyone handle it? It is obviously impossible to forget > this wrong information. So shall the TD review every action of the > defenders (upon request by the defending side, sure, but I > conservatively estimate the probability of such a request at 99%, as the > declaring side could only gain from this, and lose nothing), or do we > save the time and just let the TD assign a score? > No Matthias, my solution is that if some information is not entitled to opponents (wrong grammar, I know, but you know what I mean), then that information need not be give to those opponents. So there is no information they should be forgetting. > If you want to introduce HI (Herman's information) into the next > lawbook, well, that is your privilege. I am not going to wish you luck > for that, and in the meantime I am going to use any information the law > book says is authorized for me. > > Matthias > > P.S. I will read any additional posts in this thread (well, I will try > to, but my patience is limited), but may strange afflictions befall my > hands if I am to type another word about this.... > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 25 11:58:19 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:58:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 12B1 In-Reply-To: <1MUNWj-1xH7K40@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> <1MUKVv-1qqfSK0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <4A69DDA2.6050407@skynet.be> <1MUNWj-1xH7K40@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A6AD73B.7050508@skynet.be> Yet again Peter, you have misunderstood. I am not talking about an absence of a correction. So there is no second infraction. >>>> The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. absence of correct explanation, not absence of correction! My point is that the laws speak of "had the infraction not occurred". There are two possible interpretations of the word infraction (singular). One interpretation is that the infraction is the "wrong" explanation, and in that interpretation we exchange the "wrong" explanation for the right one. The other interpretation is that the infraction is the missing "right" explanation (not the missing correction, just the missing correct information), in which case we should add the "right" explanation to the "wrong" one and then we decide what would have happened if the player had received two informations. I am only talking about rulings, not about people forgetting to correct in time. And yes Peter, I have been tought to count up to two. Herman. Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> Peter Eidt wrote: >>> From: Herman De Wael >>>> interpretation two: >>>> The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. >>>> If the infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get a >>>> correct explanation, _in addition to_ the wrong one. > > one infraction: wrong explanation. Otherwise there could > not have been a correct explanation _in addition to_ the wrong one. > > one infraction: absence of a correction in due time. Otherwise > the non-offending side would have got a correct explanation > and the above interpretation would have no basis. > > one infraction plus one infraction make 2 infractions > q.e.d. > >>> obviously you talk about two infractions (MI _and_ absence >>> of correct explanation) and therefore I've no need to cast >>> anything. >>> >> No Pdeter, those are not two infractions, it is only one. >> It is just that there are two interpretations. >> If you cannot understand my posts, then please don't criticize them. >> >>> Do not twist "arguments" every second to please >>> your thoughts. >> It is you who are twisting arguments. It is you who was talking about >> two infractions, and when I corrected you about the second infraction, >> you invent a new second infraction. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 25 12:00:49 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:00:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 12B1 In-Reply-To: <1MUPZ2-0Tysc40@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> References: <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> <1MUKVv-1qqfSK0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <4A69DDA2.6050407@skynet.be> <1MUNWj-1xH7K40@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <1MUPZ2-0Tysc40@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A6AD7D1.5020006@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:21:45 -0400, Peter Eidt style="margin:0px;"> >> wrote: >> >> >>> From: Herman De Wael >>>> Peter Eidt wrote: >>>>> From: Herman De Wael >>>>>> interpretation two: >>>>>> The infraction refers to the absence of a correct explanation. >>>>>> If the infraction does not occur, the non-offending side get >>>>>> a correct explanation, _in addition to_ the wrong one. >>>>>> >>> one infraction: wrong explanation. Otherwise there could >>> not have been a correct explanation _in addition to_ the wrong one. >>> >>> one infraction: absence of a correction in due time. Otherwise the >>> non-offending side would have got a correct explanation >>> and the above interpretation would have no basis. >>> >> I think this a very complicated interpretation. >> >> Simple: Declarer committed an infraction by misdescribing partner's >> bid. >> Had the infraction not occurred -- declarer bid incorrectly but >> explained the bid correctly -- the defense would not have doubled. >> >> Complicated: Declarer simultaneously committed two infractions: >> misdescribing partner's bid and then failing to immediately correct >> his mistaken explanation. Presumably as time goes on he commits an >> infinite number of these second infractions, though in all cases it is >> the same law that is infracted. >> >> To correct, we do not ask what would have happened had their been no >> infractions (plural). Instead, we ask what would have happened if the >> first infraction occurred and the subsequent ones did not. >> >> I don't think it is fair or appropriate to expect directors to take >> this second path, when the first is available and works fine. > > Totally wrong path, Bob. > > (Say) declarer midescribed partner's bid and _partner_ > did not comply with his Law 20 F5bii obgligation to > correct the mistaken explanation after the end of the > auction and before the lead. > Now there are two singular infractions of different laws. > And that's what we are talking about. > No it's not. That's what you have been talking about. And since I started the thread, I am the one to decide what we should have been talking about. Robert has given a perfectly valid alternate description of what I am trying to convey. Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Jul 25 12:31:59 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:31:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20090725103213.424A9990C08E@relay2.webreus.nl> Herman: Now, and this is Ton's point, when a player realizes he has made a mistake, he has to tell the opponents at the table. In that case, opponents have both the "right" and the "wrong" information, which is AI to them. Whereas if he keeps silent, and lets the TD rule afterwards, then (if that TD is HDW) the opponents will get only the "right" information. That is an inegality which would tempt a Probst cheat from not correcting the information. Therefore, Ton concludes, the opponents should be entitled to both the "right" and the "wrong" information. ton: /// a nonsense remark: they have the wrong and should get (being defenders) the right info. I do without 'entitled'. /// What Ton fails to see ton: /// a nonsense remark: comparable with: Herman: 'the penalty for a revoke is three tricks.' The rest of the bridge world: ' No Herman the rectification is one trick.' Herman: 'the rest of the world fails to see that we only have to alter the laws making it three tricks, so I am right.' Where do we find the failure? /// is that there is a second solution to this inegality. The laws could be altered to state that when a player discovers his previous explanation was wrong, he has the option of keeping this hidden from his opponents (of course revealing it at some later time). That way too, there is no inegality any more between a player who realizes he has made a mistake and a Probst cheat who would keep it hidden. My point all along is that the WBF needs to make up its mind. Do we want the "wrong" information to be entitled ton: /// See above, same nonsense /// to the opponents as well as the "right" one. From blml at arcor.de Sat Jul 25 15:41:34 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:41:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Law 12B1 In-Reply-To: <4A6AD7D1.5020006@skynet.be> References: <4A6AD7D1.5020006@skynet.be> <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> <1MUKVv-1qqfSK0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <4A69DDA2.6050407@skynet.be> <1MUNWj-1xH7K40@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <1MUPZ2-0Tysc40@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <19123409.1248529294871.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Peter Eidt wrote: > > From: "Robert Frick" > >> I think this a very complicated interpretation. > >> > >> Simple: Declarer committed an infraction by misdescribing partner's > >> bid. > >> Had the infraction not occurred -- declarer bid incorrectly but > >> explained the bid correctly -- the defense would not have doubled. > >> > >> Complicated: Declarer simultaneously committed two infractions: > >> misdescribing partner's bid and then failing to immediately correct > >> his mistaken explanation. Presumably as time goes on he commits an > >> infinite number of these second infractions, though in all cases it is > >> the same law that is infracted. > >> > >> To correct, we do not ask what would have happened had their been no > >> infractions (plural). Instead, we ask what would have happened if the > >> first infraction occurred and the subsequent ones did not. > >> > >> I don't think it is fair or appropriate to expect directors to take > >> this second path, when the first is available and works fine. > > > > Totally wrong path, Bob. > > > > (Say) declarer midescribed partner's bid and _partner_ > > did not comply with his Law 20 F5bii obgligation to > > correct the mistaken explanation after the end of the > > auction and before the lead. > > Now there are two singular infractions of different laws. > > And that's what we are talking about. > > > > No it's not. That's what you have been talking about. > And since I started the thread, I am the one to decide what we should > have been talking about. > Robert has given a perfectly valid alternate description of what I am > trying to convey. Consider the following auction: N E S W 1NT X 2H p p 3C 3S p 4S As before, X was artificial, showing a one-suiter. 2H as per the N/S system is transfer, but N forgot. When S bid 3S, N remembered, but did not correct the failure to alert. N/S also play the new "Herman" convention, where over 1NTX 3H shows a weak hand with the majors, but longer hearts. This time, N has a monster Axxx,xx,Axx,AQxx for his weak NT, and decides to bid 4S. We are still in the auction period, and thus it is too early for S to correct the failure to alert 2H. Do you think that this N player acted correctly when he bid 4S without correcting his previous failure to alert 2H? Do you think that when E now asks for a review of this strange auction, N should be allowed to now explain 2H as "weak, hearts, fewer than four spades", even though he just bid 4S because he remembered that 2H is transfer? Thomas Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 25 17:08:15 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:08:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090725103213.424A9990C08E@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090725103213.424A9990C08E@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6B1FDF.5040602@skynet.be> ton wrote: > Herman: > > Now, and this is Ton's point, when a player realizes he has made a mistake, > he has to tell the opponents at the table. In that case, opponents have both > the "right" and the "wrong" information, which is AI to them. Whereas if he > keeps silent, and lets the TD rule afterwards, then (if that TD is HDW) the > opponents will get only the "right" > information. That is an inegality which would tempt a Probst cheat from not > correcting the information. Therefore, Ton concludes, the opponents should > be entitled to both the "right" and the "wrong" information. > > ton: > /// a nonsense remark: they have the wrong and should get (being defenders) > the right info. > I do without 'entitled'. /// > No Ton, you don't. Because what we are talking about is the ruling when the player does NOT correct at the table. In that case, we need to decide what would have happened absent the infraction. In my interpretation, that is: what would have happened with the right information _in stead of_ the wrong one. I believe they are not entitled to that wrong information, so I rule accordingly. You believe that you should take that wrong information into account, so you rule that they are entitled to it. But this is semantics only. Please note that when you first explained your views to me, and to the bridge world in general, it was right after an appeal at a European Championships (Warsaw IIRC), at which the interpretation I casually mention here as "mine" was in fact the one that the AC, in unison, followed. I don't recall many being of your opinion. But that too is of lesser importance. > What Ton fails to see > > ton: > /// a nonsense remark: comparable with: Herman: 'the penalty for a revoke is > three tricks.' The rest of the bridge world: ' No Herman the rectification > is one trick.' Herman: 'the rest of the world fails to see that we only > have to alter the laws making it three tricks, so I am right.' Where do we > find the failure? /// > No Ton, certainly not nonsense. I am not alone in believing the opponents are not entitled to the "wrong" information. You believe that they should be, and you cite in your argumentation that they "have" the wrong information as well as the right one, if the laws are followed at the table. That argumentation is wrong, since there are two solutions (three if you just leave the laws unaltered) to solve the inconsistency you correctly describe. Totally different from what you cite above on penalty tricks. And an ad hominem attack that does not fall well with me. > is that there is a second solution to this inegality. The laws could be > altered to state that when a player discovers his previous explanation was > wrong, he has the option of keeping this hidden from his opponents (of > course revealing it at some later time). That way too, there is no inegality > any more between a player who realizes he has made a mistake and a Probst > cheat who would keep it hidden. > > My point all along is that the WBF needs to make up its mind. > > Do we want the "wrong" information to be entitled > > ton: > /// See above, same nonsense /// > > to the opponents as well as the "right" one. > Ton is apparently unaware that at present he is alone among many in advocating the change that he tells us all is the main view. It is not. But then of course ACs make mistakes. As defined by Ton: anything sith which I don't agree is a mistake, and nonsense. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 25 17:12:47 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:12:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 12B1 In-Reply-To: <19123409.1248529294871.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <4A6AD7D1.5020006@skynet.be> <4A696FEC.6010706@skynet.be> <1MUHTB-1i83Iu0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <4A69A63F.3020207@skynet.be> <1MUKVv-1qqfSK0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <4A69DDA2.6050407@skynet.be> <1MUNWj-1xH7K40@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <1MUPZ2-0Tysc40@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> <19123409.1248529294871.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A6B20EF.10806@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Peter Eidt wrote: >>> From: "Robert Frick" > >>>> I think this a very complicated interpretation. >>>> >>>> Simple: Declarer committed an infraction by misdescribing partner's >>>> bid. >>>> Had the infraction not occurred -- declarer bid incorrectly but >>>> explained the bid correctly -- the defense would not have doubled. >>>> >>>> Complicated: Declarer simultaneously committed two infractions: >>>> misdescribing partner's bid and then failing to immediately correct >>>> his mistaken explanation. Presumably as time goes on he commits an >>>> infinite number of these second infractions, though in all cases it is >>>> the same law that is infracted. >>>> >>>> To correct, we do not ask what would have happened had their been no >>>> infractions (plural). Instead, we ask what would have happened if the >>>> first infraction occurred and the subsequent ones did not. >>>> >>>> I don't think it is fair or appropriate to expect directors to take >>>> this second path, when the first is available and works fine. >>> Totally wrong path, Bob. >>> >>> (Say) declarer midescribed partner's bid and _partner_ >>> did not comply with his Law 20 F5bii obgligation to >>> correct the mistaken explanation after the end of the >>> auction and before the lead. >>> Now there are two singular infractions of different laws. >>> And that's what we are talking about. >>> >> No it's not. That's what you have been talking about. >> And since I started the thread, I am the one to decide what we should >> have been talking about. >> Robert has given a perfectly valid alternate description of what I am >> trying to convey. > > Consider the following auction: > > N E S W > 1NT X 2H p > p 3C 3S p > 4S > > As before, X was artificial, showing a one-suiter. > 2H as per the N/S system is transfer, but N forgot. > When S bid 3S, N remembered, but did not correct > the failure to alert. N/S also play the new "Herman" convention, > where over 1NTX 3H shows a weak hand with the majors, > but longer hearts. > > This time, N has a monster Axxx,xx,Axx,AQxx for his weak NT, > and decides to bid 4S. > We are still in the auction period, and thus it is > too early for S to correct the failure to alert 2H. > > Do you think that this N player acted correctly when > he bid 4S without correcting his previous failure to alert 2H? No I don't. But this case is different from the previous ones, in that N does not reveal to EW, if he corrects, any misunderstanding that they will be able to use to their advantage. By not correcting his previous mistake, N gives in fact a second wrong information. The opponents are damaged not by not knowing that there was a misunderstanding, but by their inability to understand N's bidding if N does not reveal that he has changed his mind about the previous bids. > Do you think that when E now asks for a review > of this strange auction, N should be allowed to now explain > 2H as "weak, hearts, fewer than four spades", even though he > just bid 4S because he remembered that 2H is transfer? > No, of course not. > > Thomas > Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 26 01:36:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:36:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limited disclosure) References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited disclosure > Now, and this is Ton's point, when a player realizes he has made a mistake, he has to tell the opponents at the table. In that case, opponents have both the "right" and the "wrong" information, which is AI to them. Whereas if he keeps silent, and lets the TD rule afterwards, then (if that TD is HDW) the opponents will get only the "right" information. That is an inegality which would tempt a Probst cheat from not correcting the information. Therefore, Ton concludes, the opponents should be entitled to both the "right" and the "wrong" information. > +=+ I have been reading this thread with increasing concern. There is a widespread belief that when a player corrects his partner's explanation in time for the auction to be rolled back the player has a right to change his call to take into account both the corrected explanation and the incorrect explanation provided earlier. . Let us then examine exactly what the law says on the subject. [Law 20F6] "if the Director judges that a player has based an action on.....etc". [Law 21B1(a)] "..... a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given ....etc." The generality of the discussion here seems to take it for granted that the player has an absolute right to change his final pass. But the law says that it is for the TD to decide whether he may be given that opportunity. The Director is required to find that it was the misinformation that caused the player to pass. Take away the misinformation, give him the correct explanation, and without the knowledge of the misexplanation how likely would he have been to do something different? That is what the Director must decide before he rules that the misinformation (not the difference between the explanations) could well have influenced the pass to the extent that the pass may be withdrawn. When it comes to score adjustment in any of these 'mistaken explanation' situations I suggest for the Director that his approach to the subject should be taken up with the same considerations. Finally, looking to the example that triggered this thread, is it really arguable that given the right explanation and never having been given the wrong explanation he would have made a different call? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 26 04:26:21 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:26:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limited disclosure) In-Reply-To: <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be> <4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:36:39 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > It is better to lose the saddle than the horse. > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:52 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited disclosure >> > Now, and this is Ton's point, when a player realizes > he has made a mistake, he has to tell the opponents > at the table. In that case, opponents have both the > "right" and the "wrong" information, which is AI to > them. Whereas if he keeps silent, and lets the TD > rule afterwards, then (if that TD is HDW) the > opponents will get only the "right" information. That > is an inegality which would tempt a Probst cheat > from not correcting the information. > Therefore, Ton concludes, the opponents should > be entitled to both the "right" and the "wrong" > information. >> > +=+ I have been reading this thread with increasing > concern. There is a widespread belief that when a > player corrects his partner's explanation in time for > the auction to be rolled back the player has a right to > change his call to take into account both the corrected > explanation and the incorrect explanation provided > earlier. > . Let us then examine exactly what the law says > on the subject. > [Law 20F6] "if the Director judges that a player > has based an action on.....etc". > [Law 21B1(a)] "..... a player may change a call > without other rectification for his side when the > Director judges that the decision to make the call > could well have been influenced by misinformation > given ....etc." > The generality of the discussion here seems to > take it for granted that the player has an absolute > right to change his final pass. But the law says that > it is for the TD to decide whether he may be given > that opportunity. The Director is required to find > that it was the misinformation that caused the player > to pass. Take away the misinformation, give him > the correct explanation, and without the knowledge > of the misexplanation how likely would he have been > to do something different? That is what the Director > must decide before he rules that the misinformation > (not the difference between the explanations) could > well have influenced the pass to the extent that the > pass may be withdrawn. > When it comes to score adjustment in any of > these 'mistaken explanation' situations I suggest > for the Director that his approach to the subject > should be taken up with the same considerations. > Finally, looking to the example that triggered > this thread, is it really arguable that given the right > explanation and never having been given the wrong > explanation he would have made a different call? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Do I have this right? I think you are trying to point out that for this auction... South West North East 1H P 3H(1) P 4H P P P (1) Described by South as 10-11 HCP, but corrected during the clarification period to be 6-9 HCP. ...East cannot change his final pass to a double even though he now wants to and would have had the correct occured before his last bid. You are saying that the question for the director is if East would have done anything differently had South given the correct explanation in the first place. East would not have known there was a misunderstanding had that happened, so no change is allowed. (It is a given in this problem that with just the correct explanation of North's bid, no one would have doubled, but a double becomes very attractive knowing that NS likely have overbid.) --------------------- And, to return to a previous case, modified for effect, South West North East 1NT X 2C P P 2H (1) correct partnership agreement is Stayman but 2Cl was explained as natural. West complains that he would not have bid 2He if he had the correct explanation of the 2Cl bid. The question for the director is if the 2He bidder was damaged by the misexplanation. If West is given the correct explanation of 2Cl AND that South misunderstood, a pass is very attractive for West. But the question should be what West would have done with the correct explanation. That would make it look like South had a long club suit and make the 2He bid a lot more attractive. From nbpfemu at bigpond.com Sun Jul 26 07:19:15 2009 From: nbpfemu at bigpond.com (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:19:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limiteddisclosure) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5776E968A6D94A24894D8218B041C70C@noelf36449040c> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: Sunday, 26 July 2009 12:26 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limiteddisclosure) On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:36:39 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > It is better to lose the saddle than the horse. > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:52 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited disclosure >> > Now, and this is Ton's point, when a player realizes > he has made a mistake, he has to tell the opponents > at the table. In that case, opponents have both the > "right" and the "wrong" information, which is AI to > them. Whereas if he keeps silent, and lets the TD > rule afterwards, then (if that TD is HDW) the > opponents will get only the "right" information. That > is an inegality which would tempt a Probst cheat > from not correcting the information. > Therefore, Ton concludes, the opponents should > be entitled to both the "right" and the "wrong" > information. >> > +=+ I have been reading this thread with increasing > concern. There is a widespread belief that when a > player corrects his partner's explanation in time for > the auction to be rolled back the player has a right to change his > call to take into account both the corrected explanation and the > incorrect explanation provided earlier. > . Let us then examine exactly what the law says > on the subject. > [Law 20F6] "if the Director judges that a player > has based an action on.....etc". > [Law 21B1(a)] "..... a player may change a call > without other rectification for his side when the > Director judges that the decision to make the call > could well have been influenced by misinformation > given ....etc." > The generality of the discussion here seems to > take it for granted that the player has an absolute > right to change his final pass. But the law says that > it is for the TD to decide whether he may be given > that opportunity. The Director is required to find > that it was the misinformation that caused the player > to pass. Take away the misinformation, give him > the correct explanation, and without the knowledge > of the misexplanation how likely would he have been > to do something different? That is what the Director > must decide before he rules that the misinformation > (not the difference between the explanations) could > well have influenced the pass to the extent that the > pass may be withdrawn. > When it comes to score adjustment in any of > these 'mistaken explanation' situations I suggest > for the Director that his approach to the subject > should be taken up with the same considerations. > Finally, looking to the example that triggered > this thread, is it really arguable that given the right > explanation and never having been given the wrong > explanation he would have made a different call? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Do I have this right? I think you are trying to point out that for this auction... South West North East 1H P 3H(1) P 4H P P P (1) Described by South as 10-11 HCP, but corrected during the clarification period to be 6-9 HCP. ...East cannot change his final pass to a double even though he now wants to and would have had the correct occured before his last bid. You are saying that the question for the director is if East would have done anything differently had South given the correct explanation in the first place. East would not have known there was a misunderstanding had that happened, so no change is allowed. (It is a given in this problem that with just the correct explanation of North's bid, no one would have doubled, but a double becomes very attractive knowing that NS likely have overbid.) --------------------- And, to return to a previous case, modified for effect, South West North East 1NT X 2C P P 2H (1) correct partnership agreement is Stayman but 2Cl was explained as natural. West complains that he would not have bid 2He if he had the correct explanation of the 2Cl bid. The question for the director is if the 2He bidder was damaged by the misexplanation. If West is given the correct explanation of 2Cl AND that South misunderstood, a pass is very attractive for West. But the question should be what West would have done with the correct explanation. That would make it look like South had a long club suit and make the 2He bid a lot more attractive. ********************** In the first one, you have got to be kidding if that were the case.... It's the first pass that East would like to take back, and substitute a X. He might also want to X 4H, but that is less clear cut. In the second one, there is no indication of where the footnote is. I expect South explained it as natural to play, as he didn't bid over it. regards, Noel _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.29/2261 - Release Date: 07/25/09 05:58:00 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Jul 26 09:48:05 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:48:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6B1FDF.5040602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20090726074826.A3923494C24C@relay2.webreus.nl> Herman: Ton is apparently unaware that at present he is alone among many in advocating the change that he tells us all is the main view. It is not. ton: You are so caught in your own ideas that truth is of no importance. 'Walking with blinkers' we call that. Show me where I said that my approach is the main view. It is certainly not. Which is an advantage in a time where, at least in my country, most votes go to parties without any view at all. To be honest I think that appeal committees are not aware of the inconsistency in their rulings. Which you ignore completely also. It can't be that a non-offending side is damaged by an infraction of their opponents, being not disclosing in time that MI was given. This is what we call consequent damage not subsequent. And reading a side discussion, yes of course that infraction could be handled on its own: deciding what score is likely had the offending side disclosed its MI. But you don't use any other argument than sticking to 'this is what we do for a long time and 'we' (AC) have the authority to do so. To shortcut things: I consider it damage when because of MI a score is less than that of pairs in exactly the same situation where the right procedure has been followed (MI being disclosed). ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Jul 26 10:16:23 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:16:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limiteddisclosure) In-Reply-To: <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090726081635.4DF414C4C0B6@relay2.webreus.nl> Grattan: The Director is required to find that it was the misinformation that caused the player to pass. Take away the misinformation, give him the correct explanation, and without the knowledge of the misexplanation how likely would he have been to do something different? That is what the Director must decide before he rules that the misinformation (not the difference between the explanations) could well have influenced the pass to the extent that the pass may be withdrawn. ton: Apparently Grattan has become aware of the real content of this discussion now. Let us not forget that he has been member of those appeal committees for a long time. And it does not surprise me that his interpretation does support AC decisions taken. May I ask where in L 21 it says that we have to take away the knowledge of the misexplanation? I do not see it. Saying it somewhat stronger: there is nothing in the laws leading to that interpretation. For example: all calls by the offenders made after the MI could be interpreted taking this MI into account. Are the opponents not allowed to do so? And you accept that the pair not getting the right information in time has a disadvantage compared with the pairs that received that information? ton From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 26 10:46:56 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:46:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limited disclosure) In-Reply-To: <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan ............. > +=+ I have been reading this thread with increasing > concern. There is a widespread belief that when a player corrects his partner's > explanation in time for the auction to be rolled back the player has a right to > change his call to take into account both the corrected explanation and the > incorrect explanation provided earlier. > . Let us then examine exactly what the law says > on the subject. > [Law 20F6] "if the Director judges that a player has based an action on.....etc". > [Law 21B1(a)] "..... a player may change a call without other rectification for his > side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have > been influenced by misinformation given ....etc." > The generality of the discussion here seems to take it for granted that the > player has an absolute right to change his final pass. But the law says that it is for > the TD to decide whether he may be given that opportunity. The Director is > required to find that it was the misinformation that caused the player to pass. > Take away the misinformation, give him the correct explanation, and without the > knowledge of the misexplanation how likely would he have been to do something > different? That is what the Director must decide before he rules that the > misinformation (not the difference between the explanations) could well have > influenced the pass to the extent that the pass may be withdrawn. > When it comes to score adjustment in any of these 'mistaken explanation' > situations I suggest for the Director that his approach to the subject should be > taken up with the same considerations. > Finally, looking to the example that triggered this thread, is it really arguable > that given the right explanation and never having been given the wrong > explanation he would have made a different call? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am fully aware of what the laws say on this subject, but let me return to the practical situation: There is no doubt in my mind that when MI has been established the Director has a duty to inform the players about Law 21B1(a) whenever it can be applied, emphasizing the condition in this law that there must be some (demonstrable) connection between the MI and the call that might be changed. If the relevant player on the non-offending side then states that he indeed wants to change his last call I see no way the Director can judge on that request without inspecting his cards, something I never do as a Director during auction or play in order to make a judgment ruling. Therefore I always accept his request there and then, subject to later rectification if I should eventually find that he had no valid reason for stating that he would have called differently absent the MI. Right or wrong? Regards Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Jul 26 11:10:32 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:10:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle oflimited disclosure) In-Reply-To: <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> Message-ID: <20090726091044.558A1584C094@relay2.webreus.nl> If the relevant player on the non-offending side then states that he indeed wants to change his last call I see no way the Director can judge on that request without inspecting his cards, something I never do as a Director during auction or play in order to make a judgment ruling. Therefore I always accept his request there and then, subject to later rectification if I should eventually find that he had no valid reason for stating that he would have called differently absent the MI. Right or wrong? Regards Sven ton: Right, imo And if the substituted call is favorable to this side who is going to challenge it? If it is not damage could be split in subsequent and consequent, the subsequent part only appearing if the substituted call is doubtful (wild, gambling, whatever). ton From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Jul 26 11:32:08 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:32:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limited disclosure) In-Reply-To: <20090726081635.4DF414C4C0B6@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: [TK] And you accept that the pair not getting the right information in time has a disadvantage compared with the pairs that received that information? [DALB] This is problematic, and it may help to present an example that is clearer than the original case. South opens 2H, explained by North as strong. West passes with his balanced 13 count, North bids 4H, East passes with his balanced 13 count, and so does South. Now: [A] West also passes. South now corrects his partner's misexplanation - 2H was weak. West calls the Director and says that he wants to change his final pass to double. The Director asks him whether he would have acted over 2H or when 4H came back if North had explained 2H as weak. "No", says West, "but I want to double now because I know that North thought it was strong when he raised it to 4H." Should this change of call be permitted? [B] Before West's final call, North realises that he has misexplained 2H as strong when it is in fact weak. Under L20 he is obliged to call the Director at once. He does so, and West doubles. Should this result be adjusted? [C] As [B] above, but North does not know (or chooses to ignore) his obligations under L20. He remains silent until and after West's final pass, and the position reverts to [A] above. Should this result be adjusted? The real difficulty is that in cases [B] and [C] above, North does best not to obey the Law, and East-West will get a worse result against an ignorant or dishonest opponent than they would have got against a knowledgeable and honourable opponent. A minor difficulty may occur in case [A] if West knows that North-South actually play 2H as weak and can reliably infer that North has forgotten; he will double without needing to wait for South's correction, but a West who does not have this prior and private knowledge will not. But if the "prinicple of full disclosure" means anything, it means that players without prior and private knowledge of their opponents' methods should be at no disadvantage whatsoever compared with those who do not have such knowledge. I don't have any strong views on the examples I have given, but I incline to the opinion that since [B] is a possible outcome in one case where everyone is acting in accordance with the Laws, scores should be adjusted to render it the outcome in all cases. But I don't mind if all such cases are treated as in [A] - "you weren't entitled to the wrong explanation, which you heard by chance as it were, you're only entitled to the right one." What I do mind very strongly is that cases are treated differently depending on random factors such as whether an offender knows and is prepared to abide by the Law, or whether a player knows his opponent's system better than they do. David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 26 12:20:06 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:20:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090726074826.A3923494C24C@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090726074826.A3923494C24C@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6C2DD6.4000001@skynet.be> Exactly Ton, we seem to be in complete accord. ton wrote: > Herman: > > Ton is apparently unaware that at present he is alone among many in > advocating the change that he tells us all is the main view. It is not. > > ton: > You are so caught in your own ideas that truth is of no importance. 'Walking > with blinkers' we call that. > Show me where I said that my approach is the main view. It is certainly not. > Which is an advantage in a time where, at least in my country, most votes go > to parties without any view at all. > > To be honest I think that appeal committees are not aware of the > inconsistency in their rulings. Which you ignore completely also. > > It can't be that a non-offending side is damaged by an infraction of their > opponents, being not disclosing in time that MI was given. This is what we > call consequent damage not subsequent. And reading a side discussion, yes of > course that infraction could be handled on its own: deciding what score is > likely had the offending side disclosed its MI. > > But you don't use any other argument than sticking to 'this is what we do > for a long time and 'we' (AC) have the authority to do so. > > To shortcut things: I consider it damage when because of MI a score is less > than that of pairs in exactly the same situation where the right procedure > has been followed (MI being disclosed). > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 26 12:22:20 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:22:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. In-Reply-To: <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A6C2E5C.9080406@skynet.be> Grattan explains that he is firmly in the camp of the "in stead of". He even disagrees with Ton when Ton says that if the correction is given, the last passer has the right to reconsider his pass and base his decision on both the right and the "wrong" information. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > It is better to lose the saddle than the horse. > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:52 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited disclosure > Now, and this is Ton's point, when a player realizes > he has made a mistake, he has to tell the opponents > at the table. In that case, opponents have both the > "right" and the "wrong" information, which is AI to > them. Whereas if he keeps silent, and lets the TD > rule afterwards, then (if that TD is HDW) the > opponents will get only the "right" information. That > is an inegality which would tempt a Probst cheat > from not correcting the information. > Therefore, Ton concludes, the opponents should > be entitled to both the "right" and the "wrong" > information. > +=+ I have been reading this thread with increasing > concern. There is a widespread belief that when a > player corrects his partner's explanation in time for > the auction to be rolled back the player has a right to > change his call to take into account both the corrected > explanation and the incorrect explanation provided > earlier. > . Let us then examine exactly what the law says > on the subject. > [Law 20F6] "if the Director judges that a player > has based an action on.....etc". > [Law 21B1(a)] "..... a player may change a call > without other rectification for his side when the > Director judges that the decision to make the call > could well have been influenced by misinformation > given ....etc." > The generality of the discussion here seems to > take it for granted that the player has an absolute > right to change his final pass. But the law says that > it is for the TD to decide whether he may be given > that opportunity. The Director is required to find > that it was the misinformation that caused the player > to pass. Take away the misinformation, give him > the correct explanation, and without the knowledge > of the misexplanation how likely would he have been > to do something different? That is what the Director > must decide before he rules that the misinformation > (not the difference between the explanations) could > well have influenced the pass to the extent that the > pass may be withdrawn. > When it comes to score adjustment in any of > these 'mistaken explanation' situations I suggest > for the Director that his approach to the subject > should be taken up with the same considerations. > Finally, looking to the example that triggered > this thread, is it really arguable that given the right > explanation and never having been given the wrong > explanation he would have made a different call? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 26 12:20:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:20:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle oflimiteddisclosure) References: <20090726081635.4DF414C4C0B6@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <004601ca0dda$b27f01a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limited disclosure) > Grattan: > > The Director is required to find that it was the misinformation that > caused > the player to pass. Take away the misinformation, give him the correct > explanation, and without the knowledge of the misexplanation how likely > would he have been to do something different? That is what the Director > must > decide before he rules that the misinformation (not the difference between > the explanations) could well have influenced the pass to the extent that > the > pass may be withdrawn. > > ton: Apparently Grattan has become aware of the real content of this discussion now. Let us not forget that he has been member of those appeal committees for a long time. < And it does not surprise me that his interpretation does support AC decisions taken. > May I ask where in L 21 it says that we have to take away the knowledge of the misexplanation? I do not see it. Saying it somewhat stronger: there is nothing in the laws leading to that interpretation. > For example: all calls by the offenders made after the MI could be interpreted taking this MI into account. Are the opponents not allowed to do so? And you accept that the pair not getting the right information in time has a disadvantage compared with the pairs that received that information? ton > +=+ In my opinion the law asks the Director to decide whether the player's action was based upon the misinformation, *not* upon the misinformation and something else (to the extent at least that the decision to make the call "could well have been influenced" by the misinformation). The only way for the Director to judge that is to remove the MI and compare the situation without it. The Director should not allow a change of call if it does not stand up to that test, nor should he adjust a score under Law 21 where the player's action does not stand up to that test. I am concerned with what the law actually says; I do recognize the feeling that its effects may disadvantage a player in one situation by comparison with a player in another situation, but the law is not to be remedied by an effort to paper over what are suggested to be the cracks in it. .We are entitled to believe that the drafting committee, together with those who ratified the 2007 laws, intended them to say what they say. As it happens my records show that Law 20F was one of the laws that was the subject of much discussion in the drafting committee in respect of several matters. [Among them, as an example, this report was discussed: "I was listening to a discussion in Antalya concerning the timing of the correction of partner's explanation. It seemed 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"] The eventual product, now in the 2007 laws, was a considered outcome. Obviously we must avoid an emotional debate and I would think the subject is one possibly for the WBFLC in Sao Paulo. ~ Grattan ~ From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 26 12:29:28 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:29:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limited disclosure) In-Reply-To: References: <20090726081635.4DF414C4C0B6@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <000101ca0ddb$f48a6570$dd9f3050$@no> I think you forget one very important point in your examples: Whenever it is too late for a player to change his call after MI because partner has subsequently called the Director must after play is completed judge if the non-offending side has been damaged and adjust the result correspondingly. The way I understand the laws such damage includes damage due to too late revelation of MI for Law 21B1(a) to apply. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David > Burn > Sent: 26. juli 2009 11:32 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limited > disclosure) > > [TK] > > And you accept that the pair not getting the right information in time has a > disadvantage compared with the pairs that received that information? > > [DALB] > > This is problematic, and it may help to present an example that is clearer than the > original case. > > South opens 2H, explained by North as strong. West passes with his balanced > 13 count, North bids 4H, East passes with his balanced 13 count, and so does > South. Now: > > [A] West also passes. South now corrects his partner's misexplanation - 2H was > weak. West calls the Director and says that he wants to change his final pass to > double. The Director asks him whether he would have acted over 2H or when 4H > came back if North had explained 2H as weak. "No", says West, "but I want to > double now because I know that North thought it was strong when he raised it to > 4H." Should this change of call be permitted? > > [B] Before West's final call, North realises that he has misexplained 2H as strong > when it is in fact weak. Under L20 he is obliged to call the Director at once. He > does so, and West doubles. Should this result be adjusted? > > [C] As [B] above, but North does not know (or chooses to ignore) his obligations > under L20. He remains silent until and after West's final pass, and the position > reverts to [A] above. Should this result be adjusted? > > The real difficulty is that in cases [B] and [C] above, North does best not to obey > the Law, and East-West will get a worse result against an ignorant or dishonest > opponent than they would have got against a knowledgeable and honourable > opponent. > > A minor difficulty may occur in case [A] if West knows that North-South actually > play 2H as weak and can reliably infer that North has forgotten; he will double > without needing to wait for South's correction, but a West who does not have this > prior and private knowledge will not. But if the "prinicple of full disclosure" means > anything, it means that players without prior and private knowledge of their > opponents' methods should be at no disadvantage whatsoever compared with > those who do not have such knowledge. > > I don't have any strong views on the examples I have given, but I incline to the > opinion that since [B] is a possible outcome in one case where everyone is acting > in accordance with the Laws, scores should be adjusted to render it the outcome > in all cases. But I don't mind if all such cases are treated as in [A] - "you weren't > entitled to the wrong explanation, which you heard by chance as it were, you're > only entitled to the right one." What I do mind very strongly is that cases are > treated differently depending on random factors such as whether an offender > knows and is prepared to abide by the Law, or whether a player knows his > opponent's system better than they do. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 26 12:37:04 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:37:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limited disclosure) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A6C31D0.9030002@skynet.be> David has the correct point of view: David Burn wrote: > [TK] > > And you accept that the pair not getting the right information in time has a > disadvantage compared with the pairs that received that information? > > [DALB] > > This is problematic, and it may help to present an example that is clearer > than the original case. > > South opens 2H, explained by North as strong. West passes with his balanced > 13 count, North bids 4H, East passes with his balanced 13 count, and so does > South. Now: > > [A] West also passes. South now corrects his partner's misexplanation - 2H > was weak. West calls the Director and says that he wants to change his final > pass to double. The Director asks him whether he would have acted over 2H or > when 4H came back if North had explained 2H as weak. "No", says West, "but I > want to double now because I know that North thought it was strong when he > raised it to 4H." Should this change of call be permitted? > In Grattan's opinion (and mine) the change is only permitted if the TD judges that the player would make the change with the "right" information alone. So: NO, this change of call will not be permitted by the TD. > [B] Before West's final call, North realises that he has misexplained 2H as > strong when it is in fact weak. Under L20 he is obliged to call the Director > at once. He does so, and West doubles. Should this result be adjusted? > This is the problem case: see below. > [C] As [B] above, but North does not know (or chooses to ignore) his > obligations under L20. He remains silent until and after West's final pass, > and the position reverts to [A] above. Should this result be adjusted? > NO. > The real difficulty is that in cases [B] and [C] above, North does best not > to obey the Law, and East-West will get a worse result against an ignorant > or dishonest opponent than they would have got against a knowledgeable and > honourable opponent. > It seems that way, indeed. But see below. > A minor difficulty may occur in case [A] if West knows that North-South > actually play 2H as weak and can reliably infer that North has forgotten; he > will double without needing to wait for South's correction, but a West who > does not have this prior and private knowledge will not. But if the > "prinicple of full disclosure" means anything, it means that players without > prior and private knowledge of their opponents' methods should be at no > disadvantage whatsoever compared with those who do not have such knowledge. > Indeed, and again: see below. > I don't have any strong views on the examples I have given, but I incline to > the opinion that since [B] is a possible outcome in one case where everyone > is acting in accordance with the Laws, scores should be adjusted to render > it the outcome in all cases. But I don't mind if all such cases are treated > as in [A] - "you weren't entitled to the wrong explanation, which you heard > by chance as it were, you're only entitled to the right one." What I do mind > very strongly is that cases are treated differently depending on random > factors such as whether an offender knows and is prepared to abide by the > Law, or whether a player knows his opponent's system better than they do. > I agree with David that there should be the same outcome in all three cases. In order to achieve this, I would like to see it written down somewhere that a player is not entitled to the knowledge of a misunderstanding. A corrollary of that is that a player is allowed to conceal a misunderstanding from his opponents. If that is accepted, then the case C becomes the correct case, and B need not happen. Of course NS will still be subject to a MI ruling from the first infraction, but they will not be punished more severely by opponents who know more than they are entitled to. Which brings us to David's comments on case A. If the opponents read the system card, and know the system better than explainer, they are at an advantage. But if the explainer knows his opponents have read the system card, he should be allowed to say - "I'm not certain, and you have the SC, so please read it because I don't have to reveal what I think it is". That is UI to his partner of course, but the UI of "partner is uncertain" is far less damaging than "partner is wrong". Two of these rules are not in the current lawbook. I mention them because David is concerned about inconstencies in the lawbook. There is no need to throw away the child (limited disclosure) with the bathwater (trying for consistent laws). There are two ways the laws can be made consistent, and I prefer this one. But of course we can always let the laws remain inconsistent and keep discussing cases like this for two decades more. > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 26 12:38:29 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:38:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limited disclosure) In-Reply-To: <000101ca0ddb$f48a6570$dd9f3050$@no> References: <20090726081635.4DF414C4C0B6@relay2.webreus.nl> <000101ca0ddb$f48a6570$dd9f3050$@no> Message-ID: <4A6C3225.9030206@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > I think you forget one very important point in your examples: Whenever it is > too late for a player to change his call after MI because partner has > subsequently called the Director must after play is completed judge if the > non-offending side has been damaged and adjust the result correspondingly. > > The way I understand the laws such damage includes damage due to too late > revelation of MI for Law 21B1(a) to apply. > Yes, but when the TD decides he can rule according to the principle of limited information, deciding what would have happened with (only) correct information. > Regards Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > David >> Burn >> Sent: 26. juli 2009 11:32 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limited >> disclosure) >> >> [TK] >> >> And you accept that the pair not getting the right information in time has > a >> disadvantage compared with the pairs that received that information? >> >> [DALB] >> >> This is problematic, and it may help to present an example that is clearer > than the >> original case. >> >> South opens 2H, explained by North as strong. West passes with his > balanced >> 13 count, North bids 4H, East passes with his balanced 13 count, and so > does >> South. Now: >> >> [A] West also passes. South now corrects his partner's misexplanation - 2H > was >> weak. West calls the Director and says that he wants to change his final > pass to >> double. The Director asks him whether he would have acted over 2H or when > 4H >> came back if North had explained 2H as weak. "No", says West, "but I want > to >> double now because I know that North thought it was strong when he raised > it to >> 4H." Should this change of call be permitted? >> >> [B] Before West's final call, North realises that he has misexplained 2H > as strong >> when it is in fact weak. Under L20 he is obliged to call the Director at > once. He >> does so, and West doubles. Should this result be adjusted? >> >> [C] As [B] above, but North does not know (or chooses to ignore) his > obligations >> under L20. He remains silent until and after West's final pass, and the > position >> reverts to [A] above. Should this result be adjusted? >> >> The real difficulty is that in cases [B] and [C] above, North does best > not to obey >> the Law, and East-West will get a worse result against an ignorant or > dishonest >> opponent than they would have got against a knowledgeable and honourable >> opponent. >> >> A minor difficulty may occur in case [A] if West knows that North-South > actually >> play 2H as weak and can reliably infer that North has forgotten; he will > double >> without needing to wait for South's correction, but a West who does not > have this >> prior and private knowledge will not. But if the "prinicple of full > disclosure" means >> anything, it means that players without prior and private knowledge of > their >> opponents' methods should be at no disadvantage whatsoever compared with >> those who do not have such knowledge. >> >> I don't have any strong views on the examples I have given, but I incline > to the >> opinion that since [B] is a possible outcome in one case where everyone is > acting >> in accordance with the Laws, scores should be adjusted to render it the > outcome >> in all cases. But I don't mind if all such cases are treated as in [A] - > "you weren't >> entitled to the wrong explanation, which you heard by chance as it were, > you're >> only entitled to the right one." What I do mind very strongly is that > cases are >> treated differently depending on random factors such as whether an > offender >> knows and is prepared to abide by the Law, or whether a player knows his >> opponent's system better than they do. >> >> 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 26 12:44:12 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:44:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. In-Reply-To: <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> Message-ID: <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Grattan > ............. >> +=+ I have been reading this thread with increasing >> concern. There is a widespread belief that when a player corrects his > partner's >> explanation in time for the auction to be rolled back the player has a > right to >> change his call to take into account both the corrected explanation and > the >> incorrect explanation provided earlier. >> . Let us then examine exactly what the law says >> on the subject. >> [Law 20F6] "if the Director judges that a player has based an action > on.....etc". >> [Law 21B1(a)] "..... a player may change a call without other > rectification for his >> side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could > well have >> been influenced by misinformation given ....etc." >> The generality of the discussion here seems to take it for granted > that the >> player has an absolute right to change his final pass. But the law says > that it is for >> the TD to decide whether he may be given that opportunity. The Director is >> required to find that it was the misinformation that caused the player to > pass. >> Take away the misinformation, give him the correct explanation, and > without the >> knowledge of the misexplanation how likely would he have been to do > something >> different? That is what the Director must decide before he rules that the >> misinformation (not the difference between the explanations) could well > have >> influenced the pass to the extent that the pass may be withdrawn. >> When it comes to score adjustment in any of these 'mistaken > explanation' >> situations I suggest for the Director that his approach to the subject > should be >> taken up with the same considerations. >> Finally, looking to the example that triggered this thread, is it > really arguable >> that given the right explanation and never having been given the wrong >> explanation he would have made a different call? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I am fully aware of what the laws say on this subject, but let me return to > the practical situation: > > There is no doubt in my mind that when MI has been established the Director > has a duty to inform the players about Law 21B1(a) whenever it can be > applied, emphasizing the condition in this law that there must be some > (demonstrable) connection between the MI and the call that might be changed. > > If the relevant player on the non-offending side then states that he indeed > wants to change his last call I see no way the Director can judge on that > request without inspecting his cards, something I never do as a Director > during auction or play in order to make a judgment ruling. > > Therefore I always accept his request there and then, subject to later > rectification if I should eventually find that he had no valid reason for > stating that he would have called differently absent the MI. > > Right or wrong? > Right. But if you then afterwards look in his cards, and you rule that he had no reason to change his call, you do turn the result back to the original contract, don't you? So to all intents and purposes, you have made a ruling in which the change of call was not accepted. So the final result of the board is the same whether Grattan, you, or me is the director: Grattan checks first and disallows the change of call; You check afterwards and change the result back to the original contract; I (would like to) authorize the player to not give the correction, and the call is never changed. In all three scenarios, we are basing the final result on 4He undoubled (in the 1H-3H-4H case). > Regards Sven > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Jul 26 14:10:15 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:10:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principleoflimiteddisclosure) In-Reply-To: <004601ca0dda$b27f01a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090726121045.6720D486C080@relay2.webreus.nl> +=+ In my opinion the law asks the Director to decide whether the player's action was based upon the misinformation, *not* upon the misinformation and something else (to the extent at least that the decision to make the call "could well have been influenced" by the misinformation). +=+ ///We agree, nobody has said anthing different up till know. /// +=+ The only way for the Director to judge that is to remove the MI and compare the situation without it. +=+ ///Yes and now the question becomes removing from what? If things go as they should the players themselves remove the MI by giving the right information before the auction is closed and opponents may decide to remove a pass. That decision then is based upon the whole auction as it occurred, including the misunderstanding with all its consequences. You are not saying that the opponents are not allowed to take that information into account, I hope? So it is quite reasonable for the TD to judge the case in such a way that he removes the MI at that same moment if the offenders infringed the laws once again. /// +=+ The Director should not allow a change of call if it does not stand up to that test, nor should he adjust a score under Law 21 where the player's action does not stand up to that test. I am concerned with what the law actually says; I do recognize the feeling that its effects may disadvantage a player in one situation by comparison with a player in another situation, but the law is not to be remedied by an effort to paper over what are suggested to be the cracks in it. +=+ /// Interesting statement, but not right imo. Is law 12A 1 not meant to deal with those cases? Equity we strive for /// +=+ We are entitled to believe that the drafting committee, together with those who ratified the 2007 laws, intended them to say what they /// thought them to /// say. +=+ /// a meagre argument /// /// ton /// From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 26 14:40:59 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:40:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. In-Reply-To: <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 26. juli 2009 12:44 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Grattan > > ............. > >> +=+ I have been reading this thread with increasing > >> concern. There is a widespread belief that when a player corrects his > > partner's > >> explanation in time for the auction to be rolled back the player has > >> a > > right to > >> change his call to take into account both the corrected explanation > >> and > > the > >> incorrect explanation provided earlier. > >> . Let us then examine exactly what the law says > >> on the subject. > >> [Law 20F6] "if the Director judges that a player has based an > >> action > > on.....etc". > >> [Law 21B1(a)] "..... a player may change a call without other > > rectification for his > >> side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call > >> could > > well have > >> been influenced by misinformation given ....etc." > >> The generality of the discussion here seems to take it for > >> granted > > that the > >> player has an absolute right to change his final pass. But the law > >> says > > that it is for > >> the TD to decide whether he may be given that opportunity. The > >> Director is required to find that it was the misinformation that > >> caused the player to > > pass. > >> Take away the misinformation, give him the correct explanation, and > > without the > >> knowledge of the misexplanation how likely would he have been to do > > something > >> different? That is what the Director must decide before he rules that > >> the misinformation (not the difference between the explanations) > >> could well > > have > >> influenced the pass to the extent that the pass may be withdrawn. > >> When it comes to score adjustment in any of these 'mistaken > > explanation' > >> situations I suggest for the Director that his approach to the > >> subject > > should be > >> taken up with the same considerations. > >> Finally, looking to the example that triggered this thread, is > >> it > > really arguable > >> that given the right explanation and never having been given the > >> wrong explanation he would have made a different call? > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I am fully aware of what the laws say on this subject, but let me > > return to the practical situation: > > > > There is no doubt in my mind that when MI has been established the > > Director has a duty to inform the players about Law 21B1(a) whenever > > it can be applied, emphasizing the condition in this law that there > > must be some > > (demonstrable) connection between the MI and the call that might be changed. > > > > If the relevant player on the non-offending side then states that he > > indeed wants to change his last call I see no way the Director can > > judge on that request without inspecting his cards, something I never > > do as a Director during auction or play in order to make a judgment ruling. > > > > Therefore I always accept his request there and then, subject to later > > rectification if I should eventually find that he had no valid reason > > for stating that he would have called differently absent the MI. > > > > Right or wrong? > > > > Right. > But if you then afterwards look in his cards, and you rule that he had no reason to > change his call, you do turn the result back to the original contract, don't you? > > So to all intents and purposes, you have made a ruling in which the change of call > was not accepted. > So the final result of the board is the same whether Grattan, you, or me is the > director: > > Grattan checks first and disallows the change of call; You check afterwards and > change the result back to the original contract; I (would like to) authorize the > player to not give the correction, and the call is never changed. > > In all three scenarios, we are basing the final result on 4He undoubled (in the 1H- > 3H-4H case). The important difference being that I do not (implicitly) reveal anything about that player's hand to the other players at the table. Looking at a hand and then giving a judgment ruling is effectively one way for the Director to destroy the board.. Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 26 15:26:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:26:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Cat and pigeons - DALB question. Message-ID: <001601ca0df5$8ab29b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <001601ca0df5$8ab29b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000301ca0dfc$c4e98b40$4ebca1c0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > DALB asked: > North does not know (or chooses to ignore) his obligations under L20. He remains > silent until and after West's final pass, and the position reverts to [A] above. > Should this result be adjusted? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > +=+ I note in particular the "or chooses to ignore". The > question here is one of evidence. Without evidence of intent the Director is in the > (A) position and can only apply the law as we have been considering it. > If the Director judges that he has evidence that the player knew his > obligations and deliberately chose not to comply with the law, he refers to Laws > 72B1, 12A1 (since his adjustment for a breach of 72B1 is no longer restricted by > Law 21 considerations), 81C7 for action under the relevant bylaws of the RA, and > perhaps in some circumstances to Law 91. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Shall the Director not (also) try Law 23? North's failure to obey Law 20 is indeed an irregularity and the Director does not need evidence of intent, only to find that North "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side". Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 26 16:52:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:52:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Cat and pigeons - DALB question. References: <001601ca0df5$8ab29b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000301ca0dfc$c4e98b40$4ebca1c0$@no> Message-ID: <005301ca0e00$bab36bb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cat and pigeons - DALB question. > On Behalf Of Grattan >> DALB asked: >> North does not know (or chooses to ignore) his obligations under L20. He > remains >> silent until and after West's final pass, and the position reverts to [A] > above. >> Should this result be adjusted? >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> +=+ I note in particular the "or chooses to ignore". The >> question here is one of evidence. Without evidence of intent the Director > is in the >> (A) position and can only apply the law as we have been considering it. >> If the Director judges that he has evidence that the player knew > his >> obligations and deliberately chose not to comply with the law, he refers > to Laws >> 72B1, 12A1 (since his adjustment for a breach of 72B1 is no longer > restricted by >> Law 21 considerations), 81C7 for action under the relevant bylaws of the > RA, and >> perhaps in some circumstances to Law 91. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Shall the Director not (also) try Law 23? > > North's failure to obey Law 20 is indeed an irregularity and the Director > does not need evidence of intent, only to find that North "could have been > aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the > non-offending side". > > Regards Sven > +=+ I would agree the Law 23 possibility. However, there is then - I would say - insufficient evidence to lead to the disciplinary process. In passing in my earlier remarks, above, I should have acknowledged also the possibility of a Law 90 procedural penalty. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Jul 26 17:03:09 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:03:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? Message-ID: I ask that you place yourselves in the position of someone who has never heard of bridge, read a column, seen it played, or anything. In other words, have no preconceived notions, yet be aware of your knowledge. At that I want to point out that the ranking of suits is C, D, H, S. And if one thinks about it, they might have been ranked in any order except that the alphabetic mnemonic holds a particular value and thus is a suitable determining factor. However, there is the question as to what is the correct place for the denomination of NT. And of particular interest is the why? Which is to say that suits being a class and non-suits being a class just what is the logic for fitting properly the two dissimilar groups together? A different way of putting it is to answer, why, or why shouldn't 1C out rank 1N, or 1D, or 1H..? after all, suits are tangible while no-suit is a concept. And who says 1C ought to be out ranked by 1no-suit? This query is based upon the premise that there are compelling reasons that it should be a particular way, other than it's always been that way. It logically follows that given an appropriate ranking order, then an appropriate scoring value can be assigned. As an example it is possible that 1C outranking 1NT can push players to resort to OBM to resolve their dilemmas and thus be a reason that it ought not be so. However, at this moment this is my preconceived notion and not yet thought through as being valid or invalid. And for that matter, a large number of players resort to OBM where 1N outranks 1S, which leaves us where? Thanks. And to thine own self be true. roger pewick From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 26 17:22:52 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:22:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cat and pigeons - DALB question. In-Reply-To: <000301ca0dfc$c4e98b40$4ebca1c0$@no> References: <001601ca0df5$8ab29b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000301ca0dfc$c4e98b40$4ebca1c0$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:24:21 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Grattan >> DALB asked: >> North does not know (or chooses to ignore) his obligations under L20. He > remains >> silent until and after West's final pass, and the position reverts to >> [A] > above. >> Should this result be adjusted? >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> +=+ I note in particular the "or chooses to ignore". The >> question here is one of evidence. Without evidence of intent the >> Director > is in the >> (A) position and can only apply the law as we have been considering it. >> If the Director judges that he has evidence that the player knew > his >> obligations and deliberately chose not to comply with the law, he refers > to Laws >> 72B1, 12A1 (since his adjustment for a breach of 72B1 is no longer > restricted by >> Law 21 considerations), 81C7 for action under the relevant bylaws of the > RA, and >> perhaps in some circumstances to Law 91. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Shall the Director not (also) try Law 23? > > North's failure to obey Law 20 is indeed an irregularity The issue is, I think, the failure to correct the mistaken explanation. If the player does not realize his mistake, there is no deviation from correct procedure. Hence no irregularity in this. Hence, at least technically, no applicaton of L23. And, while we're on the subject, there is also technically no applicaton of L21B3 ("When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score.") > and the Director > does not need evidence of intent, only to find that North "could have > been > aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the > non-offending side". > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 26 17:33:35 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:33:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000401ca0e06$717499a0$545dcce0$@no> On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > I ask that you place yourselves in the position of someone who has never heard of > bridge, read a column, seen it played, or anything. In other words, have no > preconceived notions, yet be aware of your knowledge. > > At that I want to point out that the ranking of suits is C, D, H, S. And if one thinks > about it, they might have been ranked in any order except that the alphabetic > mnemonic holds a particular value and thus is a suitable determining factor. > > However, there is the question as to what is the correct place for the denomination > of NT. And of particular interest is the why? Which is to say that suits being a > class and non-suits being a class just what is the logic for fitting properly the two > dissimilar groups together? > > A different way of putting it is to answer, why, or why shouldn't 1C out rank 1N, or > 1D, or 1H..? after all, suits are tangible while no-suit is a concept. And who says > 1C ought to be out ranked by 1no-suit? > > This query is based upon the premise that there are compelling reasons that it > should be a particular way, other than it's always been that way. It logically follows > that given an appropriate ranking order, then an appropriate scoring value can be > assigned. > > As an example it is possible that 1C outranking 1NT can push players to resort to > OBM to resolve their dilemmas and thus be a reason that it ought not be so. > However, at this moment this is my preconceived notion and not yet thought > through as being valid or invalid. And for that matter, a large number of players > resort to OBM where 1N outranks 1S, which leaves us where? > It hasn't always been that way. I have in my library a book titled "Bridge", edited in 1906, describing and giving the laws for a game called "Bridge" that apparently in its turn was superseded by the game "Auction Bridge". In "Bridge" as of 1906 Spades was the lowest ranking suit. Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 26 17:37:08 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:37:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principle of limiteddisclosure) In-Reply-To: <20090726081635.4DF414C4C0B6@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090726081635.4DF414C4C0B6@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 04:16:23 -0400, ton wrote: > Grattan: > The Director is required to find that it was the misinformation that > caused > the player to pass. Take away the misinformation, give him the correct > explanation, and without the knowledge of the misexplanation how likely > would he have been to do something different? That is what the Director > must > decide before he rules that the misinformation (not the difference > between > the explanations) could well have influenced the pass to the extent that > the > pass may be withdrawn. > > ton: > Apparently Grattan has become aware of the real content of this > discussion > now. > Let us not forget that he has been member of those appeal committees for > a > long time. > > And it does not surprise me that his interpretation does support AC > decisions taken. > > May I ask where in L 21 it says that we have to take away the knowledge > of > the misexplanation? > I do not see it. Saying it somewhat stronger: there is nothing in the > laws > leading to that interpretation. > > For example: all calls by the offenders made after the MI could be > interpreted taking this MI into account. Are the opponents not allowed > to do > so? > And you accept that the pair not getting the right information in time > has a > disadvantage compared with the pairs that received that information? > > ton Is the infraction giving the mistaken explanation or not giving the correct explanation? If it is giving the mistaken explanation, then the mistaken explanation necessarily disappears in an L12 adjustment -- we calculate what would have happened had the irregularity (the mistaken explanation) had not occurred. If it is not giving the correct explanation, then we calculate what would have happened had the irregularity (no correct explanation) had occurred. This means calculating what would have happened had the NOS been given the correct explanation. Then the question would be what it means for the NOS to be given the correction explanation: in place of the mistaken explanation, or in addition to the mistaken explanation? But at least the mistaken explanation is not ruled out. Bob From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 26 18:00:33 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:00:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. (was: The principleoflimiteddisclosure) In-Reply-To: <20090726121045.6720D486C080@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090726121045.6720D486C080@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6C7DA1.10609@skynet.be> ton wrote: > +=+ In my opinion the law asks the Director to > decide whether the player's action was based upon > the misinformation, *not* upon the misinformation > and something else (to the extent at least that the > decision to make the call "could well have been > influenced" by the misinformation). +=+ > > ///We agree, nobody has said anthing different up till know. /// > > > +=+ The only way for the Director to judge that is to remove the MI > and compare the situation without it. +=+ > > ///Yes and now the question becomes removing from what? > > If things go as they should the players themselves remove the MI by giving > the right information before the auction is closed and opponents may decide > to remove a pass. That decision then is based upon the whole auction as it > occurred, including the misunderstanding with all its consequences. You are > not saying that the opponents are not allowed to take that information into > account, I hope? > That is not as things should go, Ton. They should call the director, and he shall allow (or not) the change of call. According to Grattan, that change is not authorized in the case under scrutiny. > So it is quite reasonable for the TD to judge the case in such a way that he > removes the MI at that same moment if the offenders infringed the laws once > again. /// > > +=+ > The Director > should not allow a change of call if it does not > stand up to that test, nor should he adjust a score > under Law 21 where the player's action does not > stand up to that test. > I am concerned with what the law actually > says; I do recognize the feeling that its effects > may disadvantage a player in one situation by > comparison with a player in another situation, but > the law is not to be remedied by an effort to > paper over what are suggested to be the cracks > in it. +=+ > > /// Interesting statement, but not right imo. Is law 12A 1 not meant to deal > with those cases? Equity we strive for /// > Yes Ton, but you should not talk about the equity with a situation you invent yourself and which does not conform to the laws. > +=+ > We are entitled to believe that the drafting > committee, together with those who ratified the > 2007 laws, intended them to say what they /// thought them to /// say. > +=+ > > /// a meagre argument /// > Meagre? We should assume the laws say what they want to say? > /// ton /// > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 26 18:05:17 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:05:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. In-Reply-To: <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> Message-ID: <4A6C7EBD.20004@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> In all three scenarios, we are basing the final result on 4He undoubled > (in the 1H- >> 3H-4H case). > > The important difference being that I do not (implicitly) reveal anything > about that player's hand to the other players at the table. > > Looking at a hand and then giving a judgment ruling is effectively one way > for the Director to destroy the board.. > Well Sven, not in this case, actually. You will be giving an adjusted score, Grattan will not. And your adjustment will have to be against the non-offending side! I believe it is better to let the table decide. So I think that in this case the director should clearly explain what he'll be looking for ("are you basing your bid on the new explanation or on the knowledge of the misunderstanding?") and then hope he won't have to adjust afterwards. IOW, I hope that your players will be able to decide as good as you. I won't mind them asking me to have a look myself. Herman. > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 26 18:09:07 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:09:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat and pigeons - DALB question. In-Reply-To: <001601ca0df5$8ab29b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001601ca0df5$8ab29b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A6C7FA3.4040509@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > DALB asked: > North does not know (or chooses to ignore) his > obligations under L20. He remains silent until and > after West's final pass, and the position reverts to > [A] above. Should this result be adjusted? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > +=+ I note in particular the "or chooses to ignore". The > question here is one of evidence. Without evidence of > intent the Director is in the (A) position and can only > apply the law as we have been considering it. > If the Director judges that he has evidence that the > player knew his obligations and deliberately chose not > to comply with the law, he refers to Laws 72B1, 12A1 > (since his adjustment for a breach of 72B1 is no longer > restricted by Law 21 considerations), 81C7 for action > under the relevant bylaws of the RA, and perhaps in > some circumstances to Law 91. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan answers the wrong question. David's question is not one of intent. Of course if intent is involved, additional penalties can apply. But there can be a third reason why North does not correct: he may well believe his partner gave the correct explanation. Yet the TD might decide against him. And then David's question is as before: what should the director do: should he base his adjustment on the correct information alone, or should he also base it on the missing correction, and the knowledge of a misunderstanding? I believe Grattan has answered that one, of course. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 26 18:10:48 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:10:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be> The suits are in alphabetical order if NT is written ZonderTroef, as in Dutch! Herman. Roger Pewick wrote: > > I ask that you place yourselves in the position of someone who has never > heard of bridge, read a column, seen it played, or anything. In other > words, have no preconceived notions, yet be aware of your knowledge. > > At that I want to point out that the ranking of suits is C, D, H, S. And if > one thinks about it, they might have been ranked in any order except that > the alphabetic mnemonic holds a particular value and thus is a suitable > determining factor. > Herman. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 26 18:25:45 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:25:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. In-Reply-To: <4A6C7EBD.20004@skynet.be> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> <4A6C7EBD.20004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501ca0e0d$ba8e1d80$2faa5880$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> > >> In all three scenarios, we are basing the final result on 4He > >> undoubled > > (in the 1H- > >> 3H-4H case). > > > > The important difference being that I do not (implicitly) reveal > > anything about that player's hand to the other players at the table. > > > > Looking at a hand and then giving a judgment ruling is effectively one > > way for the Director to destroy the board.. > > > > Well Sven, not in this case, actually. You will be giving an adjusted score, Grattan > will not. And your adjustment will have to be against the non-offending side! > I believe it is better to let the table decide. Who has said anything to the effect that I will give an adjustment against a non-offending side? If a player changing his call under Law 21 has done so obviously contrary to my instruction that such change must be founded on the MI he is certainly an offender in this respect.. > > So I think that in this case the director should clearly explain what he'll be looking > for ("are you basing your bid on the new explanation or on the knowledge of the > misunderstanding?") and then hope he won't have to adjust afterwards. > IOW, I hope that your players will be able to decide as good as you. I won't mind > them asking me to have a look myself. So far this has never been any problem where i have directed. And I still never look at any player's hand until after the play has been completed in order to make a judgment ruling involving that hand! Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 26 18:57:48 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:57:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be> References: <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601ca0e12$34ce3590$9e6aa0b0$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 26. juli 2009 18:11 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? > > The suits are in alphabetical order if NT is written ZonderTroef, as in Dutch! > Herman. And what about the denominations: S H, R and K ? Regards Sven From henk at ripe.net Sun Jul 26 19:07:18 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:07:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be> References: <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > The suits are in alphabetical order if NT is written ZonderTroef, as in > Dutch! NT is written as SA or NT in Dutch. ZT is a local accent. (And the order would not be alphabetical anyway: K, R, H, S, SA/NT/ZT). Henk > Herman. > > Roger Pewick wrote: >> I ask that you place yourselves in the position of someone who has never >> heard of bridge, read a column, seen it played, or anything. In other >> words, have no preconceived notions, yet be aware of your knowledge. >> >> At that I want to point out that the ranking of suits is C, D, H, S. And if >> one thinks about it, they might have been ranked in any order except that >> the alphabetic mnemonic holds a particular value and thus is a suitable >> determining factor. >> > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Jul 26 19:45:02 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:45:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6C2DD6.4000001@skynet.be> References: <20090726074826.A3923494C24C@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A6C2DD6.4000001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A6C961E.3020101@aol.com> Have I misunderstood something? Ton wrote (see below): "You (Herman) are so caught up in your own ideas that truth is of no importance." Herman replied (below as well): "Exactly Ton, we seem to be in complete accord." What is left of my mind reels. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Exactly Ton, we seem to be in complete accord. > > ton wrote: >> Herman: >> >> Ton is apparently unaware that at present he is alone among many in >> advocating the change that he tells us all is the main view. It is not. >> >> ton: >> You are so caught in your own ideas that truth is of no importance. 'Walking >> with blinkers' we call that. >> Show me where I said that my approach is the main view. It is certainly not. >> Which is an advantage in a time where, at least in my country, most votes go >> to parties without any view at all. >> >> To be honest I think that appeal committees are not aware of the >> inconsistency in their rulings. Which you ignore completely also. >> >> It can't be that a non-offending side is damaged by an infraction of their >> opponents, being not disclosing in time that MI was given. This is what we >> call consequent damage not subsequent. And reading a side discussion, yes of >> course that infraction could be handled on its own: deciding what score is >> likely had the offending side disclosed its MI. >> >> But you don't use any other argument than sticking to 'this is what we do >> for a long time and 'we' (AC) have the authority to do so. >> >> To shortcut things: I consider it damage when because of MI a score is less >> than that of pairs in exactly the same situation where the right procedure >> has been followed (MI being disclosed). >> >> 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 JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Jul 26 20:18:17 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:18:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: <4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> References: <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be> <4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A6C9DE9.3000309@aol.com> In short stories written by Chekhov in the late 1880s bridge is mentioned. I don't know what sort of bridge (before auction?) and the alphabetical order of the suits (and possibly NT) in Russian. But probably one of the slavic members of blml does. JE Henk Uijterwaal schrieb: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> The suits are in alphabetical order if NT is written ZonderTroef, as in >> Dutch! > > NT is written as SA or NT in Dutch. ZT is a local accent. > > (And the order would not be alphabetical anyway: K, R, H, S, SA/NT/ZT). > > Henk > > > >> Herman. >> >> Roger Pewick wrote: >>> I ask that you place yourselves in the position of someone who has never >>> heard of bridge, read a column, seen it played, or anything. In other >>> words, have no preconceived notions, yet be aware of your knowledge. >>> >>> At that I want to point out that the ranking of suits is C, D, H, S. And if >>> one thinks about it, they might have been ranked in any order except that >>> the alphabetic mnemonic holds a particular value and thus is a suitable >>> determining factor. >>> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > From cibor at poczta.fm Sun Jul 26 21:36:09 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:36:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? References: <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be><4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> <4A6C9DE9.3000309@aol.com> Message-ID: <0ECDC87CF48E4E249A8B651910BFA2EF@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? > In short stories written by Chekhov in the late 1880s bridge is > mentioned. I don't know what sort of bridge (before auction?) and the > alphabetical order of the suits (and possibly NT) in Russian. But > probably one of the slavic members of blml does. JE > I don't know what bridge wa played in the novel but in Russion the suits aren't ranked in alphabetical order. The order is no trump, diamonds, spades, clubs and hearts (??? ??????, ?????, ????, ?????, ?????). In Polish it is no trump, diamonds, hearts, spades and clubs (bez atu, kara, kiery, piki, trefle). Polish names are almost identical to French ones. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Znizki na ubezpieczenia komunikacyjne OC i Auto Casco -20 zl na OC, -30 zl na Auto Casco? Tylko do 31 VIII i tylko u nas! Nie zwlekaj! Kliknij na http://link.interia.pl/f2283 i sprawdz! From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Jul 26 21:43:31 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:43:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: <0ECDC87CF48E4E249A8B651910BFA2EF@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be><4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> <4A6C9DE9.3000309@aol.com> <0ECDC87CF48E4E249A8B651910BFA2EF@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4A6CB1E3.90206@aol.com> This is getting interesting although not (yet?) controversial. French and English are well known. In Germany: Coeur, Karo, Pik, SA, Treff. But in Austria: Herz, Karo, Kreuz, Pik SA. (But in both lands ohne (ohne Trumpf) is occasionally used instead of SA.) Anyone know Gaelic or Basque? Ciao, JE Konrad Ciborowski schrieb: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:18 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? > > >> In short stories written by Chekhov in the late 1880s bridge is >> mentioned. I don't know what sort of bridge (before auction?) and the >> alphabetical order of the suits (and possibly NT) in Russian. But >> probably one of the slavic members of blml does. JE >> > > I don't know what bridge wa played in the novel but in Russion the suits > aren't > ranked in alphabetical order. The order is no trump, diamonds, > spades, clubs and hearts (??? ??????, ?????, ????, ?????, ?????). > > In Polish it is no trump, diamonds, hearts, spades and clubs (bez atu, > kara, kiery, piki, trefle). Polish names are almost identical to French > ones. > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Znizki na ubezpieczenia komunikacyjne OC i Auto Casco > -20 zl na OC, -30 zl na Auto Casco? Tylko do 31 VIII i tylko u nas! > Nie zwlekaj! Kliknij na http://link.interia.pl/f2283 i sprawdz! > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Sun Jul 26 22:04:39 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:04:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: <4A6CB1E3.90206@aol.com> References: <4A6CB1E3.90206@aol.com> <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be><4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> <4A6C9DE9.3000309@aol.com> <0ECDC87CF48E4E249A8B651910BFA2EF@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <5848967.1248638679130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> In Germany, the cards might at some point have changed from the German deck to the French deck. The suits on most traditional German decks do not include clubs and diamonds, and the "leaves" suit is only remotely similar to spades. Here some example cards (queens and jacks) from a bavarian deck: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Schafkopf.jpg Thomas Jeff Easterson wrote: > This is getting interesting although not (yet?) controversial. French > and English are well known. In Germany: Coeur, Karo, Pik, SA, Treff. > But in Austria: Herz, Karo, Kreuz, Pik SA. (But in both lands ohne (ohne > Trumpf) is occasionally used instead of SA.) > Anyone know Gaelic or Basque? Ciao, JE > > Konrad Ciborowski schrieb: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jeff Easterson" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:18 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? > > > > > >> In short stories written by Chekhov in the late 1880s bridge is > >> mentioned. I don't know what sort of bridge (before auction?) and the > >> alphabetical order of the suits (and possibly NT) in Russian. But > >> probably one of the slavic members of blml does. JE > >> > > > > I don't know what bridge wa played in the novel but in Russion the suits > > aren't > > ranked in alphabetical order. The order is no trump, diamonds, > > spades, clubs and hearts (??? ??????, ?????, ????, ?????, ?????). > > > > In Polish it is no trump, diamonds, hearts, spades and clubs (bez atu, > > kara, kiery, piki, trefle). Polish names are almost identical to French > > ones. > > > > Konrad Ciborowski > > Krak?w, Poland > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Znizki na ubezpieczenia komunikacyjne OC i Auto Casco > > -20 zl na OC, -30 zl na Auto Casco? Tylko do 31 VIII i tylko u nas! > > Nie zwlekaj! Kliknij na http://link.interia.pl/f2283 i sprawdz! > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 26 22:38:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:38:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: <20090726074826.A3923494C24C@relay2.webreus.nl><4A6C2DD6.4000001@skynet.be> <4A6C961E.3020101@aol.com> Message-ID: <002001ca0e31$17275340$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure Have I misunderstood something? Ton wrote (see below): "You (Herman) are so caught up in your own ideas that truth is of no importance." Herman replied (below as well): "Exactly Ton, we seem to be in complete accord." What is left of my mind reels. JE > Herman De Wael schrieb: Exactly Ton, we seem to be in complete accord. >> ton wrote: Herman: > Ton is apparently unaware that at present he is alone among many in advocating the change that he tells us all is the main view. It is not. ton: You are so caught in your own ideas that truth is of no importance. 'Walking with blinkers' we call that. Show me where I said that my approach is the main view. It is certainly not. Which is an advantage in a time where, at least in my country, most votes go to parties without any view at all. > To be honest I think that appeal committees are not aware of the inconsistency in their rulings. Which you ignore completely also. It can't be that a non-offending side is damaged by an infraction of their opponents, being not disclosing in time that MI was given. This is what we call consequent damage not subsequent. And reading a side discussion, yes of course that infraction could be handled on its own: deciding what score is likely had the offending side disclosed its MI. > But you don't use any other argument than sticking to 'this is what we do for a long time and 'we' (AC) have the authority to do so. > To shortcut things: I consider it damage when because of MI a score is less than that of pairs in exactly the same situation where the right procedure has been followed (MI being disclosed). > ton > +=+ I am not clear here what it is that ton is saying in this last shortcut remark. Is it an expression of view that overrides the definition of damage in Law 12B1? - or how does it apply? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 26 23:20:29 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:20:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. In-Reply-To: <000501ca0e0d$ba8e1d80$2faa5880$@no> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> <4A6C7EBD.20004@skynet.be> <000501ca0e0d$ba8e1d80$2faa5880$@no> Message-ID: <4A6CC89D.6040502@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >> Well Sven, not in this case, actually. You will be giving an adjusted > score, Grattan >> will not. And your adjustment will have to be against the non-offending > side! >> I believe it is better to let the table decide. > > Who has said anything to the effect that I will give an adjustment against a > non-offending side? > > If a player changing his call under Law 21 has done so obviously contrary to > my instruction that such change must be founded on the MI he is certainly an > offender in this respect.. > How can he be an offender if you haven't yet decided whether or not he can change his call? Anyway, that is not important. What is important is that you will have to make one type of ruling, while we are making another type. Ours is a MI ruling, as we are quite confident in doing. Yours is a ruling I can only describe as twisted. You will have to rule whether or not the non-offending side was right in judging that the information they would have received is enough for them to warrant to change their call. When it is quite clear that some other piece of information, to which they were not entitled, must have influenced their decision. I wish you all the luck in the world at that. And why? Because you wish to keep on to a "principle", nowhere written, that you shall not look in their hand. Fine, you do as you please. > > So far this has never been any problem where i have directed. > Of course not, have you ever had to make a ruling of this kind? > And I still never look at any player's hand until after the play has been > completed in order to make a judgment ruling involving that hand! > A rule you adhere to maybe a little too religiously. > Sven > Herman. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 27 00:18:03 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:18:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. In-Reply-To: <4A6CC89D.6040502@skynet.be> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> <4A6C7EBD.20004@skynet.be> <000501ca0e0d$ba8e1d80$2faa5880$@no> <4A6CC89D.6040502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01ca0e3e$f1e469c0$d5ad3d40$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >>> > >> Well Sven, not in this case, actually. You will be giving an adjusted > > score, Grattan > >> will not. And your adjustment will have to be against the > >> non-offending > > side! > >> I believe it is better to let the table decide. > > > > Who has said anything to the effect that I will give an adjustment > > against a non-offending side? > > > > If a player changing his call under Law 21 has done so obviously > > contrary to my instruction that such change must be founded on the MI > > he is certainly an offender in this respect.. > > > > > How can he be an offender if you haven't yet decided whether or not he can > change his call? I should have guessed that you either do not bother to read or just do not understand what I write before making your comments. So let me repeat: As it is impossible for a Director to inspect a player's cards in order to make a judgment ruling without giving away to the other players at the table possibly important information about that hand he should never do so during the auction or play, but delay such inspection and ruling until play of the hand has been completed. I always follow this rule strictly. If MI has been established in time for Law 21B1(a) to apply I inform the relevant player of his right to change his last call and the conditions for such change as they are specified in this law. I also inform him that because I must delay my inspection of his cards and judgment on this matter until the play of the board has been completed (in order not to give away information on his hand to the other players) I shall leave him to decide at his own responsibility if he wants to change his last call. Then if I afterwards find that he had no acceptable cause for such change and that his opponents were damaged by the change I shall award an adjusted score in order to rectify this damage. > > Anyway, that is not important. What is important is that you will have to make one > type of ruling, while we are making another type. Ours is a MI ruling, as we are > quite confident in doing. > Yours is a ruling I can only describe as twisted. You will have to rule whether or > not the non-offending side was right in judging that the information they would > have received is enough for them to warrant to change their call. When it is quite > clear that some other piece of information, to which they were not entitled, must > have influenced their decision. I wish you all the luck in the world at that. > And why? Because you wish to keep on to a "principle", nowhere written, that you > shall not look in their hand. Fine, you do as you please. > > > > > So far this has never been any problem where i have directed. > > > > Of course not, have you ever had to make a ruling of this kind? By making the situation clear to the player in question I have never experienced a change of a call under Law 21B1(a) that subsequently was questioned by his opponents. But I have many times had players stating that their last call was not influenced by the MI so they didn't want to change their call. > > And I still never look at any player's hand until after the play has > > been completed in order to make a judgment ruling involving that hand! > > > > A rule you adhere to maybe a little too religiously. So you don't feel any problem with looking at a player's hand and then informing the other players at the table what you found? A horrible example is still (I believe) lectured for all new Directors: The Director that was called to a table where a player had raised to game (or something) after UI obviously had been received from his partner. The Director looked at the player's hand and announced: I find that his bid was OK! Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jul 27 08:53:21 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:53:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: <5848967.1248638679130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <4A6CB1E3.90206@aol.com> <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be><4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> <4A6C9DE9.3000309@aol.com> <0ECDC87CF48E4E249A8B651910BFA2EF@sfora4869e47f1> <5848967.1248638679130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A6D4EE1.4090808@t-online.de> Another aspect of this: In Germany most (if not all) cardgames other than Bridge use a different order of suits. Kreuz (clubs) is the highest, followed by Pik (spades), Herz (hearts) and Karo (diamonds). Maybe other countries have this, too, I don't know. Best regards Matthias From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 27 09:55:37 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:55:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. In-Reply-To: <000a01ca0e3e$f1e469c0$d5ad3d40$@no> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> <4A6C7EBD.20004@skynet.be> <000501ca0e0d$ba8e1d80$2faa5880$@no> <4A6CC89D.6040502@skynet.be> <000a01ca0e3e$f1e469c0$d5ad3d40$@no> Message-ID: <4A6D5D79.90502@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> How can he be an offender if you haven't yet decided whether or not he can >> change his call? > > I should have guessed that you either do not bother to read or just do not > understand what I write before making your comments. > I guess that you either do not bother to read or just do not understand what I write ... > So let me repeat: > > As it is impossible for a Director to inspect a player's cards in order to > make a judgment ruling without giving away to the other players at the table > possibly important information about that hand he should never do so during > the auction or play, but delay such inspection and ruling until play of the > hand has been completed. > > I always follow this rule strictly. > So let me repeat: that "rule" is Sven's rule. It is good advice, but it is not a rule that _must_ be obeyed as one of the eleven commandments. I have given you reasons why I believe that in this case, it is better not to obey "Sven's rule". If all you can ansswer is that you will obey it because it is a rule, then the discussion is finished. I don't discuss religion with fundamentalists. > If MI has been established in time for Law 21B1(a) to apply I inform the > relevant player of his right to change his last call and the conditions for > such change as they are specified in this law. I also inform him that > because I must delay my inspection of his cards and judgment on this matter > until the play of the board has been completed (in order not to give away > information on his hand to the other players) I shall leave him to decide at > his own responsibility if he wants to change his last call. Then if I > afterwards find that he had no acceptable cause for such change and that his > opponents were damaged by the change I shall award an adjusted score in > order to rectify this damage. > Yes, you have said that before, and I have understood it. My reaction was about something totally different. Why do you believe I have not read or understood what you write just because I don't agree? This is one of those sad reaction all too prevalent on blml. "If he disagrees, he's either stupid or he cannot read". >> Anyway, that is not important. What is important is that you will have to > make one >> type of ruling, while we are making another type. Ours is a MI ruling, as > we are >> quite confident in doing. >> Yours is a ruling I can only describe as twisted. You will have to rule > whether or >> not the non-offending side was right in judging that the information they > would >> have received is enough for them to warrant to change their call. When it > is quite >> clear that some other piece of information, to which they were not > entitled, must >> have influenced their decision. I wish you all the luck in the world at > that. >> And why? Because you wish to keep on to a "principle", nowhere written, > that you >> shall not look in their hand. Fine, you do as you please. >> >>> So far this has never been any problem where i have directed. >>> >> Of course not, have you ever had to make a ruling of this kind? > > By making the situation clear to the player in question I have never > experienced a change of a call under Law 21B1(a) that subsequently was > questioned by his opponents. But I have many times had players stating that > their last call was not influenced by the MI so they didn't want to change > their call. > And what do you do if the player tells you that he does not understand and could you please look at his hand to determine whether he can change his call? >>> And I still never look at any player's hand until after the play has >>> been completed in order to make a judgment ruling involving that hand! >>> >> A rule you adhere to maybe a little too religiously. > > So you don't feel any problem with looking at a player's hand and then > informing the other players at the table what you found? > Of course there is a problem with that - but is it any different information than when you tell him what to look for, and he looks into his own hand? Consider it this way: say you determine that if he holds an ace, he can double 7S, not just from the misunderstanding, but also from his hand. I look in his hand, see the Ace, and say he can change his call. You tell him "if you have an ace, you can change your call", and he does. Which one of us has told the table more? The table already knows that he can only change his call if it is from his hand, not from the misunderstanding. They already know he is considering changing his call. What more can you tell the table that he cannot tell them themself by either changing his call or not? Your rule is very good in other situations, but (IMO) not in this one. > A horrible example is still (I believe) lectured for all new Directors: The > Director that was called to a table where a player had raised to game (or > something) after UI obviously had been received from his partner. The > Director looked at the player's hand and announced: I find that his bid was > OK! > A perfect example of what I wrote above: your rule is very good in other situations. Since this situation is not the one we are discussing, it serves as a very poor argument for your position. > Sven > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 27 10:12:19 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:12:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. In-Reply-To: <000a01ca0e3e$f1e469c0$d5ad3d40$@no> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> <4A6C7EBD.20004@skynet.be> <000501ca0e0d$ba8e1d80$2faa5880$@no> <4A6CC89D.6040502@skynet.be> <000a01ca0e3e$f1e469c0$d5ad3d40$@no> Message-ID: <4A6D6163.7090202@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> How can he be an offender if you haven't yet decided whether or not he can >> change his call? > > I should have guessed that you either do not bother to read or just do not > understand what I write before making your comments. > I guess that you either do not bother to read or just do not understand what I write ... > So let me repeat: > > As it is impossible for a Director to inspect a player's cards in order to > make a judgment ruling without giving away to the other players at the table > possibly important information about that hand he should never do so during > the auction or play, but delay such inspection and ruling until play of the > hand has been completed. > > I always follow this rule strictly. > So let me repeat: that "rule" is Sven's rule. It is good advice, but it is not a rule that _must_ be obeyed as one of the eleven commandments. I have given you reasons why I believe that in this case, it is better not to obey "Sven's rule". If all you can ansswer is that you will obey it because it is a rule, then the discussion is finished. I don't discuss religion with fundamentalists. > If MI has been established in time for Law 21B1(a) to apply I inform the > relevant player of his right to change his last call and the conditions for > such change as they are specified in this law. I also inform him that > because I must delay my inspection of his cards and judgment on this matter > until the play of the board has been completed (in order not to give away > information on his hand to the other players) I shall leave him to decide at > his own responsibility if he wants to change his last call. Then if I > afterwards find that he had no acceptable cause for such change and that his > opponents were damaged by the change I shall award an adjusted score in > order to rectify this damage. > Yes, you have said that before, and I have understood it. My reaction was about something totally different. Why do you believe I have not read or understood what you write just because I don't agree? This is one of those sad reaction all too prevalent on blml. "If he disagrees, he's either stupid or he cannot read". >> Anyway, that is not important. What is important is that you will have to > make one >> type of ruling, while we are making another type. Ours is a MI ruling, as > we are >> quite confident in doing. >> Yours is a ruling I can only describe as twisted. You will have to rule > whether or >> not the non-offending side was right in judging that the information they > would >> have received is enough for them to warrant to change their call. When it > is quite >> clear that some other piece of information, to which they were not > entitled, must >> have influenced their decision. I wish you all the luck in the world at > that. >> And why? Because you wish to keep on to a "principle", nowhere written, > that you >> shall not look in their hand. Fine, you do as you please. >> >>> So far this has never been any problem where i have directed. >>> >> Of course not, have you ever had to make a ruling of this kind? > > By making the situation clear to the player in question I have never > experienced a change of a call under Law 21B1(a) that subsequently was > questioned by his opponents. But I have many times had players stating that > their last call was not influenced by the MI so they didn't want to change > their call. > And what do you do if the player tells you that he does not understand and could you please look at his hand to determine whether he can change his call? >>> And I still never look at any player's hand until after the play has >>> been completed in order to make a judgment ruling involving that hand! >>> >> A rule you adhere to maybe a little too religiously. > > So you don't feel any problem with looking at a player's hand and then > informing the other players at the table what you found? > Of course there is a problem with that - but is it any different information than when you tell him what to look for, and he looks into his own hand? Consider it this way: say you determine that if he holds an ace, he can double 7S, not just from the misunderstanding, but also from his hand. I look in his hand, see the Ace, and say he can change his call. You tell him "if you have an ace, you can change your call", and he does. Which one of us has told the table more? The table already knows that he can only change his call if it is from his hand, not from the misunderstanding. They already know he is considering changing his call. What more can you tell the table that he cannot tell them themself by either changing his call or not? Your rule is very good in other situations, but (IMO) not in this one. > A horrible example is still (I believe) lectured for all new Directors: The > Director that was called to a table where a player had raised to game (or > something) after UI obviously had been received from his partner. The > Director looked at the player's hand and announced: I find that his bid was > OK! > A perfect example of what I wrote above: your rule is very good in other situations. Since this situation is not the one we are discussing, it serves as a very poor argument for your position. > Sven > Herman. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 27 10:27:39 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:27:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. In-Reply-To: <4A6D5D79.90502@skynet.be> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> <4A6C7EBD.20004@skynet.be> <000501ca0e0d$ba8e1d80$2faa5880$@no> <4A6CC89D.6040502@skynet.be> <000a01ca0e3e$f1e469c0$d5ad3d40$@no> <4A6D5D79.90502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101ca0e94$1a8d0a80$4fa71f80$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > > As it is impossible for a Director to inspect a player's cards in > > order to make a judgment ruling without giving away to the other > > players at the table possibly important information about that hand he > > should never do so during the auction or play, but delay such > > inspection and ruling until play of the hand has been completed. > > > > I always follow this rule strictly. > > > > So let me repeat: > > that "rule" is Sven's rule. It is good advice, but it is not a rule that _must_ be > obeyed as one of the eleven commandments. That is NOT "my" rule, it is a rule we enforce rather strictly in Norway. Sven From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jul 27 10:47:11 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:47:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: <0ECDC87CF48E4E249A8B651910BFA2EF@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be><4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> <4A6C9DE9.3000309@aol.com> <0ECDC87CF48E4E249A8B651910BFA2EF@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: On 26 Jul 2009, at 20:36, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > I don't know what bridge wa played in the novel but in Russion the > suits > aren't > ranked in alphabetical order. In bridge-whist, which preceded auction bridge, the suits were ranked in a different order. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090727/ea5c32e9/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 27 11:13:55 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:13:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> <4A6C7EBD.20004@skynet.be> <000501ca0e0d$ba8e1d80$2faa5880$@no> <4A6CC89D.6040502@skynet.be><000a01ca0e3e$f1e469c0$d5ad3d40$@no> <4A6D5D79.90502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301ca0e9a$b9a437a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. > that "rule" is Sven's rule. It is good advice, but it is not a rule that _must_ be obeyed as one of the eleven commandments. > I have given you reasons why I believe that in this case, it is better not to obey "Sven's rule". If all you can answer is that you will obey it because it is a rule, then the discussion is finished. I don't discuss religion with fundamentalists. > +=+ I do not pretend to be streetwise in the matter of Tournament Director practice. I look to Max Bavin, obviously, and to a certain William J. Schoder, to be my mentors in this. Their styles are different but each has a healthy understanding of how to give rulings, superior in my opinion to any here. The question under 'discussion' between Sven and Herman is whether, in making a Law 20F6 ruling the Director should look at the player's cards. Sven thinks not, and I would be very reluctant to share Herman's alternative view. So I ask myself why it should not be possible to determine whether (when the situation still allows the Director to roll the auction back to the call*) the player has based his decision to make a call without looking at his cards. Can he take him away from the table without his cards and explore what is/was in his mind when he claims such is the case? The Director wishes to judge whether with the correct explanations exclusively the player would have (could well have) called differently. Help me, mentors, how should the Director go about it? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* if it is too late to roll back the auction I would think he defers his investigation until the end of the play.] p.s. I wonder if Herman discusses fundamentalism with the devout? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 27 11:42:57 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:42:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A6D76A1.3030307@ulb.ac.be> Roger Pewick a ?crit : > I ask that you place yourselves in the position of someone who has never > heard of bridge, read a column, seen it played, or anything. In other > words, have no preconceived notions, yet be aware of your knowledge. > > At that I want to point out that the ranking of suits is C, D, H, S. And if > one thinks about it, they might have been ranked in any order except that > the alphabetic mnemonic holds a particular value and thus is a suitable > determining factor. > > However, there is the question as to what is the correct place for the > denomination of NT. And of particular interest is the why? Which is to say > that suits being a class and non-suits being a class just what is the logic > for fitting properly the two dissimilar groups together? > Interesting question. I think the rationale behind this is that NT contracts are more difficult to make on similar assets than contracs in your best suit. This means games in NT are lower in number of tricks required, and this in turn means that it is logical for 3NT to rank as close as possible in the scale of contracts to other game contracts, and this is achieved by placing NT above suits. It would be strange for 3NT to be a game, then a gap made of 6 suit non-games, then the first suit game. The same holds true in other contract games where NT exists, like Boston, Ghent whist or "belote bridg?e". In the latter, NT outranks suit contracts (no notion of contract evel there, only a scale of denominations), and "tout atout", which is a kind of NT with the order of top cards modified, lies above all others. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 27 11:44:13 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:44:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: <000401ca0e06$717499a0$545dcce0$@no> References: <000401ca0e06$717499a0$545dcce0$@no> Message-ID: <4A6D76ED.8020402@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > O > > > It hasn't always been that way. > > I have in my library a book titled "Bridge", edited in 1906, describing and > giving the laws for a game called "Bridge" that apparently in its turn was > superseded by the game "Auction Bridge". > > In "Bridge" as of 1906 Spades was the lowest ranking suit. > Like at whist.and belote, and Spanish games. But NT hjas always ranked above everything else. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 27 11:46:32 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:46:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: <4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> References: <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be> <4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A6D7778.9090806@ulb.ac.be> Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> The suits are in alphabetical order if NT is written ZonderTroef, as in >> Dutch! >> > > NT is written as SA or NT in Dutch. ZT is a local accent. > I guess it's a typical French-disliking accent. SA is French, therefore disallowed in Flanders. You in the Netherlands have Buros, Burelen or Bureaus. We have only Kantoors. Bureau is a French word. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 27 11:57:26 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:57:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: <5848967.1248638679130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <4A6CB1E3.90206@aol.com> <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be><4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> <4A6C9DE9.3000309@aol.com> <0ECDC87CF48E4E249A8B651910BFA2EF@sfora4869e47f1> <5848967.1248638679130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A6D7A06.9030308@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > In Germany, the cards might at some point have changed > from the German deck to the French deck. > > The suits on most traditional German decks > do not include clubs and diamonds, and the > "leaves" suit is only remotely similar to spades. > Originally, the cards were swords (spades), cups (hearts), coins (diamonds) and cudgels (clubs). They still are in traditional Spanish cards. The change of the first three is explanable by shape similarities (there were square coins in France, and they were called "carreaux"), The latter (meaning unchanged but a different symbol) might come from the Celtic belief that clover or shamrock leaf added to the strength of cudgels. If anybody has played D&D, one might remember that the material componennt for the druidic spell "Shillelagh" is a shamrock leaf. Also notice that "trump/troef/trumpf" is an old French word ("triomphe", feminine in this case) but totally obsolete. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 27 12:10:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:10:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. Message-ID: <001201ca0ea2$7857ef00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <4A6C8008.1060404@skynet.be><4A6C8D46.4000403@ripe.net> <4A6C9DE9.3000309@aol.com> <0ECDC87CF48E4E249A8B651910BFA2EF@sfora4869e47f1><5848967.1248638679130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> <4A6D7A06.9030308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201ca0ea3$e81cf370$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > In Germany, the cards might at some point have changed > from the German deck to the French deck. > > The suits on most traditional German decks > do not include clubs and diamonds, and the > "leaves" suit is only remotely similar to spades. > Originally, the cards were swords (spades), cups (hearts), coins (diamonds) and cudgels (clubs). They still are in traditional Spanish cards. The change of the first three is explanable by shape similarities (there were square coins in France, and they were called "carreaux"), The latter (meaning unchanged but a different symbol) might come from the Celtic belief that clover or shamrock leaf added to the strength of cudgels. If anybody has played D&D, one might remember that the material componennt for the druidic spell "Shillelagh" is a shamrock leaf. Also notice that "trump/troef/trumpf" is an old French word ("triomphe", feminine in this case) but totally obsolete. (Grattan) If you place 1NT first, followed by the suits in English in descending sequence you have a recognizable (reverse) sequence. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 27 12:37:23 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:37:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. In-Reply-To: <002301ca0e9a$b9a437a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> <4A6C7EBD.20004@skynet.be> <000501ca0e0d$ba8e1d80$2faa5880$@no> <4A6CC89D.6040502@skynet.be><000a01ca0e3e$f1e469c0$d5ad3d40$@no> <4A6D5D79.90502@skynet.be> <002301ca0e9a$b9a437a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A6D8363.7030906@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > The question under 'discussion' between Sven and Herman > is whether, in making a Law 20F6 ruling the Director should > look at the player's cards. Sven thinks not, and I would be > very reluctant to share Herman's alternative view. You seem to misunderstand my position, Grattan. I do not advocate always looking at a players' cards. I am simply reluctant (in this particular case) to accept Sven's "rule", which comes from practice in other cases, of "never look at a player's cards". There is no such written rule and to use it in a situation for which it was not intended seems too much to me. There should be no reluctance to share my views. You either accept Sven's insistence or you don't. That alternative is "Herman's view" but naming it does seems to make you reluctant to join it, as if I'm some leper whose views are always to be shunned. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 27 13:08:36 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:08:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. References: <20090724092554.1F9F4990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A69A4E8.1000300@skynet.be> <4A69C083.1060706@t-online.de> <4A69D5C3.9050500@skynet.be><4A6A3093.1030200@t-online.de> <4A6AD5FB.8040908@skynet.be> <004b01ca0d82$ac6b8e80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001ca0dcd$a2d33d50$e879b7f0$@no> <4A6C337C.1050001@skynet.be> <000201ca0dee$557021b0$00506510$@no> <4A6C7EBD.20004@skynet.be> <000501ca0e0d$ba8e1d80$2faa5880$@no> <4A6CC89D.6040502@skynet.be><000a01ca0e3e$f1e469c0$d5ad3d40$@no> <4A6D5D79.90502@skynet.be><002301ca0e9a$b9a437a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6D8363.7030906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501ca0eaa$97987260$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cat among the pigeons. > Grattan wrote: >> >> The question under 'discussion' between Sven and Herman >> is whether, in making a Law 20F6 ruling the Director should >> look at the player's cards. Sven thinks not, and I would be >> very reluctant to share Herman's alternative view. > > You seem to misunderstand my position, Grattan. > I do not advocate always looking at a players' cards. > I am simply reluctant (in this particular case) to accept Sven's "rule", > which comes from practice in other cases, of "never look at a player's > cards". There is no such written rule and to use it in a situation for > which it was not intended seems too much to me. > > There should be no reluctance to share my views. You either accept > Sven's insistence or you don't. That alternative is "Herman's view" but > naming it does seems to make you reluctant to join it, as if I'm some > leper whose views are always to be shunned. > > Herman. +=+ The reluctance is not personal, except as I have indicated. That is, I take my advice on TD's practice from Max and Kojak - not from Sven, yourself, nor indeed from any others on here. I fully understand that your view relates to this special MI exercise, and not generally. ~ G ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jul 27 14:36:45 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:36:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <002001ca0e31$17275340$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090727123703.47AC0990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> +=+ I am not clear here what it is that ton is saying in this last shortcut remark. Is it an expression of view that overrides the definition of damage in Law 12B1? - or how does it apply? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: It is not imo, and I tried to explain it in almost all messages I sent on this subject, but I accept that the issue is difficult so let me try once more, telling a story. There is a nice nbo somewhere in our bridge world with a magazine which has educational aims. And in the October issue an article appears which describes that in modern bridge the answer of 3H/S after a 1H/1S (5+) opening is made with a weak hand with at least 4 cards support. This information is received with great enthusiasm and a huge majority of the players decide to adopt it. This nbo has its national festival in December and it appears that in one of the first deals the auction at almost all tables (63; all = 70) goes 1H (by West) - pass - 3H. Regulations say that if weak the 3H call should be alerted. It is alerted at 7 table where 3H becomes the final contract. At the other 56 (63 - 7) tables West after some thoughts bids 4H closing the auction. Happily enough the magazine in its September issue last year has explained the readers that when the supposed to become declaring side has given wrong info it has to anounce it in the so called correction period (after the last pass). So at 55 tables East before the lead tells the opponents that the partnership has agreed to play 3H as weak and not as the old fashioned invitational call. The TD, wearing a badge showing he is Herman, is called at 47 tables. He explains that South is allowed to change his pass if it is likely that it could well have been influenced by the wrong info. South asks whether he is allowed to use all info he has received and Herman tells him that he is, but inferences drawn normally spoken are risks the player has to accept. Looking at his AK6 7 KQ84 JT953 all South players decide to replace the pass in a double. The contract goes 2 off. At 8 tables the TD is not called. The players knowing what to do decide to arrange it themselves, which leads to the same result: 2 off doubled. There is one table left, where East forgets to announce the misexplanation by his partner West (he wasn't member of the nbo last year yet). As soon as the dummy is on the table N calls the TD, telling him that NS has received wrong info. Herman tells that they have to continue and may call him back if they consider to be damaged. To support his statement he proudly reads out L 41C : 'when the opening lead is faced the playing period begins irrevocably'. There the contract is 4H - 2 and N calls Herman back. 'We think we are damaged by the omision not to rectify the MI, if South knows in time that 3H is weak he might have doubled. Herman replies: 'sorry sir, but that is not the consideration to make. You are entitled to know that 3H is weak but not that West didn't remember. Sir, you are probably right that we are not entitled to know but it happens to be info that hardly can be ignored. And wouldn't you allow us to use it had East called you in time? Herman remembers that he indeed did so at 47 tables just a couple of minutes ago. Furthermore, North adds: 'We have some knowledge of the laws and we know that L12B1 defines damage as a result below the expectation had the infraction not occurred. If we agree that not informing us about the meaning of 3H in time is an infraction we would like you to decide whether the expectation without that infraction leads to a better result than + 100 (North glimpsed to the board to notice that EW were not vulnarable). While not probable it might be that some contracts were played in 4H and if doubled those figures could have some merit, don't you think?' Herman promised to have a look but added that he had never ruled like that. Going through the data he discovered that 4H was doubled at 55 tables. Not convinced yet he asked some pairs for the auction, invariably hearing that after 1H - 3H (not alerted) East had disclosed the MI in time after which South has an automatic double. But he refused to adjust the score to + 300 for NS, knowing that somebody called Grattan was member of the appeal committee, so the expectation to be overruled was close to zero. ton From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 27 15:06:48 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:06:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090727123703.47AC0990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090727123703.47AC0990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6DA668.1060504@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > > ton: > > It is not imo, and I tried to explain it in almost all messages I sent on > this subject, but I accept that the issue is difficult so let me try once > more, telling a story. > > There is a nice nbo somewhere in our bridge world with a magazine which has > educational aims. And in the October issue an article appears which > describes that in modern bridge the answer of 3H/S after a 1H/1S (5+) > opening is made with a weak hand with at least 4 cards support. > This information is received with great enthusiasm and a huge majority of > the players decide to adopt it. > This nbo has its national festival in December and it appears that in one of > the first deals the auction at almost all tables (63; all = 70) goes 1H (by > West) - pass - 3H. Regulations say that if weak the 3H call should be > alerted. It is alerted at 7 table where 3H becomes the final contract. At > the other 56 (63 - 7) tables West after some thoughts bids 4H closing the > auction. > Happily enough the magazine in its September issue last year has explained > the readers that > when the supposed to become declaring side has given wrong info it has to > anounce it in the so called correction period (after the last pass). So at > 55 tables East before the lead tells the opponents that the partnership has > agreed to play 3H as weak and not as the old fashioned invitational call. > The TD, wearing a badge showing he is Herman, is called at 47 tables. He > explains that South is allowed to change his pass if it is likely that it > could well have been influenced by the wrong info. South asks whether he is > allowed to use all info he has received and Herman tells him that he is, but > inferences drawn normally spoken are risks the player has to accept. Looking > at his AK6 7 KQ84 JT953 all South players decide to replace the pass in a > double. The contract goes 2 off. > AG : all very good, except perhaps that nobody would double 1H-3H-4H on that even knowing of a mistake. In fact, doubling because you know there is a mistake is, in most of the cases : - dangerous, because they've found a fit and you can't be sure of your defensive assets against unbalanced distributions - dangerous, because they're in the wrong suit and you've told them (remember the thread which said that you can't take out the contract because of UI, but you sometimes may after a double ?) - not linked to the misunderstanding, i.e. you've got the tricks in your own hand. So, the case of the final double is unimportant. Reopening, however, can be important. I remember a live case : 2D p 3H p 4S p 4NT p 5D p 5S p p p 4S was strong, explained as such, but opener thought he was showing a maximum weak 2-bid. We could have made 6C. My intention was to reopen after 2D-3H-3S, holding a freak with clubs and hearts, but I didn't in what looked like a slam auction.. Do you think I was entitled to the information that opener didn't, in fact, hold a strong hand ? I don't think so. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 27 15:17:33 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:17:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090727123703.47AC0990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090727123703.47AC0990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6DA8ED.2010904@skynet.be> Nice story Ton, but it has all been said before. And it has been answered. And the answer is: ton wrote: > > > +=+ I am not clear here what it is that ton is saying > in this last shortcut remark. > Is it an expression of view that overrides the > definition of damage in Law 12B1? - or how > does it apply? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > ton: > > It is not imo, and I tried to explain it in almost all messages I sent on > this subject, but I accept that the issue is difficult so let me try once > more, telling a story. > > There is a nice nbo somewhere in our bridge world with a magazine which has > educational aims. And in the October issue an article appears which > describes that in modern bridge the answer of 3H/S after a 1H/1S (5+) > opening is made with a weak hand with at least 4 cards support. > This information is received with great enthusiasm and a huge majority of > the players decide to adopt it. > This nbo has its national festival in December and it appears that in one of > the first deals the auction at almost all tables (63; all = 70) goes 1H (by > West) - pass - 3H. Regulations say that if weak the 3H call should be > alerted. It is alerted at 7 table where 3H becomes the final contract. At > the other 56 (63 - 7) tables West after some thoughts bids 4H closing the > auction. > Happily enough the magazine in its September issue last year has explained > the readers that > when the supposed to become declaring side has given wrong info it has to > anounce it in the so called correction period (after the last pass). So at > 55 tables East before the lead tells the opponents that the partnership has > agreed to play 3H as weak and not as the old fashioned invitational call. > The TD, wearing a badge showing he is Herman, is called at 47 tables. He > explains that South is allowed to change his pass if it is likely that it > could well have been influenced by the wrong info. South asks whether he is > allowed to use all info he has received and Herman tells him that he is, but > inferences drawn normally spoken are risks the player has to accept. NO; Herman has read the advice Grattan has given, and answers that South is not allowed to use the wrong info, but only the right one. If he would have made a different call with the correct information in stead of the right one, then he is entitled to do so now. > Looking > at his AK6 7 KQ84 JT953 all South players decide to replace the pass in a > double. The contract goes 2 off. No, since they will not be allowed to by Herman. Some may still say they want to, and Herman may let them, subject to later change, which Herman will do. All the tables will then score +100. > At 8 tables the TD is not called. The players knowing what to do decide to > arrange it themselves, which leads to the same result: 2 off doubled. These tables have infracted L9, and have taken it upon themselves to change their call. Some of them will be changed back to +100. (Some NS will keep their +300 if they should have known better and called the TD). > There is one table left, where East forgets to announce the misexplanation > by his partner West (he wasn't member of the nbo last year yet). As soon as > the dummy is on the table N calls the TD, telling him that NS has received > wrong info. Herman tells that they have to continue and may call him back if > they consider to be damaged. To support his statement he proudly reads out L > 41C : 'when the opening lead is faced the playing period begins > irrevocably'. There the contract is 4H - 2 and N calls Herman back. 'We > think we are damaged by the omision not to rectify the MI, if South knows in > time that 3H is weak he might have doubled. Herman replies: 'sorry sir, but > that is not the consideration to make. You are entitled to know that 3H is > weak but not that West didn't remember. Sir, you are probably right that we > are not entitled to know but it happens to be info that hardly can be > ignored. And wouldn't you allow us to use it had East called you in time? > Herman remembers that he indeed did so at 47 tables just a couple of minutes > ago. Furthermore, North adds: 'We have some knowledge of the laws and we > know that L12B1 defines damage as a result below the expectation had the > infraction not occurred. If we agree that not informing us about the meaning > of 3H in time is an infraction we would like you to decide whether the > expectation without that infraction leads to a better result than + 100 > (North glimpsed to the board to notice that EW were not vulnarable). While > not probable it might be that some contracts were played in 4H and if > doubled those figures could have some merit, don't you think?' > Herman promised to have a look but added that he had never ruled like that. > Going through the data he discovered that 4H was doubled at 55 tables. Not > convinced yet he asked some pairs for the auction, invariably hearing that > after 1H - 3H (not alerted) East had disclosed the MI in time after which > South has an automatic double. > > But he refused to adjust the score to + 300 for NS, knowing that somebody > called Grattan was member of the appeal committee, so the expectation to be > overruled was close to zero. > Nice story Ton, but sadly not true, so not a good argument for changing the laws. > ton > Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jul 27 16:07:41 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:07:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6DA668.1060504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20090727145346.594A5485C1BC@relay2.webreus.nl> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: maandag 27 juli 2009 15:07 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure ton a ?crit : > > ton: > > It is not imo, and I tried to explain it in almost all messages I sent > on this subject, but I accept that the issue is difficult so let me > try once more, telling a story. > > There is a nice nbo somewhere in our bridge world with a magazine > which has educational aims. And in the October issue an article > appears which describes that in modern bridge the answer of 3H/S after > a 1H/1S (5+) opening is made with a weak hand with at least 4 cards support. > This information is received with great enthusiasm and a huge majority > of the players decide to adopt it. > This nbo has its national festival in December and it appears that in > one of the first deals the auction at almost all tables (63; all = 70) > goes 1H (by > West) - pass - 3H. Regulations say that if weak the 3H call should be > alerted. It is alerted at 7 table where 3H becomes the final contract. > At the other 56 (63 - 7) tables West after some thoughts bids 4H > closing the auction. > Happily enough the magazine in its September issue last year has > explained the readers that when the supposed to become declaring side > has given wrong info it has to anounce it in the so called correction > period (after the last pass). So at > 55 tables East before the lead tells the opponents that the > partnership has agreed to play 3H as weak and not as the old fashioned invitational call. > The TD, wearing a badge showing he is Herman, is called at 47 tables. > He explains that South is allowed to change his pass if it is likely > that it could well have been influenced by the wrong info. South asks > whether he is allowed to use all info he has received and Herman tells > him that he is, but inferences drawn normally spoken are risks the > player has to accept. Looking at his AK6 7 KQ84 JT953 all South > players decide to replace the pass in a double. The contract goes 2 off. > AG : all very good, except perhaps that nobody would double 1H-3H-4H on that even knowing of a mistake. In fact, doubling because you know there is a mistake is, in most of the cases : - dangerous, because they've found a fit and you can't be sure of your defensive assets against unbalanced distributions - dangerous, because they're in the wrong suit and you've told them (remember the thread which said that you can't take out the contract because of UI, but you sometimes may after a double ?) - not linked to the misunderstanding, i.e. you've got the tricks in your own hand. So, the case of the final double is unimportant. Reopening, however, can be important. I remember a live case : 2D p 3H p 4S p 4NT p 5D p 5S p p p 4S was strong, explained as such, but opener thought he was showing a maximum weak 2-bid. We could have made 6C. My intention was to reopen after 2D-3H-3S, holding a freak with clubs and hearts, but I didn't in what looked like a slam auction.. Do you think I was entitled to the information that opener didn't, in fact, hold a strong hand ? I don't think so. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jul 27 17:17:03 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:17:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6DA8ED.2010904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20090727151711.283EB990C08E@relay2.webreus.nl> NO; Herman has read the advice Grattan has given, and answers that South is not allowed to use the wrong info, but only the right one. If he would have made a different call with the correct information in stead of the right one, then he is entitled to do so now. ton: I gave up trying to have a decent conversation with you (Herman). Now you are telling that the opponents are not allowed to use (wrong) information they received? This is not the same as trying to convince the world that an adjusted score will be based on the right info only. Completely hopeless. (as is Alain, who now starts telling that doubling is a wrong action, very interesting given the subject) I tried to answer Grattan who asked me in his gentle but condemning way whether I know what the laws say. +=+ I am not clear here what it is that ton is saying in this last shortcut remark. Is it an expression of view that overrides the definition of damage in Law 12B1? - or how does it apply? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ To be honest: I don't know, for most of it the answer is yes. And in this case I know, my approach does not override the definition of damage, I just apply the laws, not restricted to selected infractions but to all. ton From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jul 27 17:31:24 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:31:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. In-Reply-To: <001201ca0ea2$7857ef00$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001201ca0ea2$7857ef00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: I see no reason for the TD to look at the player's cards. In the last scenario I would take him away from the table, without the cards, and ask him what he would have done had he been timely advised of the infraction IAW law 20F5 (b) (ii). This would guard against those borderline "I would always have" statements that are so common when the result of the hand is known, and give me vital information of what rectification I would assign, if any. ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 6:10 AM Subject: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. Grattan Endicott (also - temporarily or perhaps permanently suspended) ********************************** " Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just, But four times he who gets his blow in fust." [Henry Wheeler Shaw]. ********************************** Revised text. My son rang me in the middle of my re-sorting the initial message and it came out in the shape of a pig's ear. Here is another attempt to put the question. +=+ I do not pretend to be streetwise in the matter of Tournament Director practice. I look to Max Bavin, obviously, and to a certain William J. Schoder, to be my mentors in this. Their styles are different but each has a healthy understanding of how to give rulings, superior in my opinion to any here. The question under 'discussion' between Sven and Herman is whether, in making a Law 20F6 ruling the Director should look at the player's cards. Sven thinks not, and I would be very reluctant to share Herman's alternative view. So I ask myself why it should not be possible to determine, without looking at his cards, (when the situation still allows the Director to roll the auction back to the call*) whether the player has based his decision to make a call on the misinformation. . Can the Director take him away from the table without his cards and explore what is/was in his mind when he claims such is the case? The Director wishes to judge whether with the correct explanations exclusively the player would have (could well have) called differently. Help me, mentors, how should the Director go about it? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* if it is too late to roll back the auction I would think he defers his investigation until the end of the play.] _______________________________________________ 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/20090727/2e2a6dc8/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 27 17:34:31 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:34:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: <20090727123703.47AC0990C106@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <001801ca0ecf$d75a02e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure > > > +=+ I am not clear here what it is that ton is saying > in this last shortcut remark. > Is it an expression of view that overrides the > definition of damage in Law 12B1? - or how > does it apply? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > ton: > > It is not imo, and I tried to explain it in almost all messages I sent on > this subject, but I accept that the issue is difficult so let me try once > more, telling a story. > > There is a nice nbo somewhere in our bridge world with a magazine which > has > educational aims. And in the October issue an article appears which > describes that in modern bridge the answer of 3H/S after a 1H/1S (5+) > opening is made with a weak hand with at least 4 cards support. > This information is received with great enthusiasm and a huge majority of > the players decide to adopt it. > This nbo has its national festival in December and it appears that in one > of > the first deals the auction at almost all tables (63; all = 70) goes 1H > (by > West) - pass - 3H. Regulations say that if weak the 3H call should be > alerted. It is alerted at 7 table where 3H becomes the final contract. At > the other 56 (63 - 7) tables West after some thoughts bids 4H closing the > auction. > Happily enough the magazine in its September issue last year has explained > the readers that > when the supposed to become declaring side has given wrong info it has to > anounce it in the so called correction period (after the last pass). So at > 55 tables East before the lead tells the opponents that the partnership > has > agreed to play 3H as weak and not as the old fashioned invitational call. > The TD, wearing a badge showing he is Herman, is called at 47 tables. He > explains that South is allowed to change his pass if it is likely that it > could well have been influenced by the wrong info. South asks whether he > is > allowed to use all info he has received and Herman tells him that he is, > but > inferences drawn normally spoken are risks the player has to accept. > Looking > at his AK6 7 KQ84 JT953 all South players decide to replace the pass in a > double. The contract goes 2 off. > At 8 tables the TD is not called. The players knowing what to do decide to > arrange it themselves, which leads to the same result: 2 off doubled. > There is one table left, where East forgets to announce the misexplanation > by his partner West (he wasn't member of the nbo last year yet). As soon > as > the dummy is on the table N calls the TD, telling him that NS has received > wrong info. Herman tells that they have to continue and may call him back > if > they consider to be damaged. To support his statement he proudly reads out > L > 41C : 'when the opening lead is faced the playing period begins > irrevocably'. There the contract is 4H - 2 and N calls Herman back. 'We > think we are damaged by the omision not to rectify the MI, if South knows > in > time that 3H is weak he might have doubled. Herman replies: 'sorry sir, > but > that is not the consideration to make. You are entitled to know that 3H is > weak but not that West didn't remember. Sir, you are probably right that > we > are not entitled to know but it happens to be info that hardly can be > ignored. And wouldn't you allow us to use it had East called you in time? > Herman remembers that he indeed did so at 47 tables just a couple of > minutes > ago. Furthermore, North adds: 'We have some knowledge of the laws and we > know that L12B1 defines damage as a result below the expectation had the > infraction not occurred. If we agree that not informing us about the > meaning > of 3H in time is an infraction we would like you to decide whether the > expectation without that infraction leads to a better result than + 100 > (North glimpsed to the board to notice that EW were not vulnarable). While > not probable it might be that some contracts were played in 4H and if > doubled those figures could have some merit, don't you think?' > Herman promised to have a look but added that he had never ruled like > that. > Going through the data he discovered that 4H was doubled at 55 tables. Not > convinced yet he asked some pairs for the auction, invariably hearing that > after 1H - 3H (not alerted) East had disclosed the MI in time after which > South has an automatic double. > > But he refused to adjust the score to + 300 for NS, knowing that somebody > called Grattan was member of the appeal committee, so the expectation to > be > overruled was close to zero. > > ton > +=+ Thank you, ton, for taking the time and trouble to explain your stance to me. I am not going to reply immediately since I have printed out your remarks and wish to study them carefully before I do. However, the last three lines just above this acknowledgement tend to suggest that I am able to persuade other members of committees against their beliefs and understandings. I think that such as Joan Gerard, John Wignall, Jens Auken, Jean-Paul Meyer, P.O.Sundelin Jeff Polisner, Bill Pencharz, and others of that ilk, might well take the implication amiss. ~Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 27 19:45:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. In-Reply-To: <001201ca0ea2$7857ef00$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001201ca0ea2$7857ef00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <41773.24.46.179.117.1248716712.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just, > But four times he who gets his blow in fust." > [Henry Wheeler Shaw]. > ********************************** > Revised text. My son rang me in the middle of my re-sorting > the initial message and it came out in the shape of a pig's ear. > Here is another attempt to put the question. > > +=+ I do not pretend to be streetwise in the matter of > Tournament Director practice. I look to Max Bavin, obviously, > and to a certain William J. Schoder, to be my mentors in this. > Their styles are different but each has a healthy understanding > of how to give rulings, superior in my opinion to any here. > The question under 'discussion' between Sven and Herman > is whether, in making a Law 20F6 ruling the Director should > look at the player's cards. Sven thinks not, and I would be > very reluctant to share Herman's alternative view. > So I ask myself why it should not be possible to determine, > without looking at his cards, (when the situation still allows the > Director to roll the auction back to the call*) whether the > player has based his decision to make a call on the misinformation. . > Can the Director take him away from the table without his > cards and explore what is/was in his mind when he claims such > is the case? What is on his mind isn't that relevant, so players probably aren't going to answer this accurately. In the Grattan version, not the Ton version, you are asking the player what he would have bid if he had gotten the correct explanation but not the incorrect explanation. Basically, that is a hard question to answer. The director, being unbiased, can probably do a better job at it. I had this ruling today. The player said she would change her bid. I took her away from the table. She told me what she wanted to bid, I asked her to explain why she didn't make that bid anyway, she explained it to me, satisfactorily. I let her change her call. No problems. > The Director wishes to judge whether with the > correct explanations exclusively the player would have (could > well have) called differently. > Help me, mentors, how should the Director go about it? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > [* if it is too late to roll back the auction I would think he defers > his investigation until the end of the play.] > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jul 27 20:12:11 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:12:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. In-Reply-To: <001201ca0ea2$7857ef00$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001201ca0ea2$7857ef00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A6DEDFB.20807@aol.com> How about hand records, distributed to the TDs before play begins? This is usual in most (all?) of the tournaments I direct. Ciao, JE Grattan schrieb: > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just, > But four times he who gets his blow in fust." > [Henry Wheeler Shaw]. > ********************************** > Revised text. My son rang me in the middle of my re-sorting > the initial message and it came out in the shape of a pig's ear. > Here is another attempt to put the question. > > +=+ I do not pretend to be streetwise in the matter of > Tournament Director practice. I look to Max Bavin, obviously, > and to a certain William J. Schoder, to be my mentors in this. > Their styles are different but each has a healthy understanding > of how to give rulings, superior in my opinion to any here. > The question under 'discussion' between Sven and Herman > is whether, in making a Law 20F6 ruling the Director should > look at the player's cards. Sven thinks not, and I would be > very reluctant to share Herman's alternative view. > So I ask myself why it should not be possible to determine, > without looking at his cards, (when the situation still allows the > Director to roll the auction back to the call*) whether the > player has based his decision to make a call on the misinformation. . > Can the Director take him away from the table without his > cards and explore what is/was in his mind when he claims such > is the case? The Director wishes to judge whether with the > correct explanations exclusively the player would have (could > well have) called differently. > Help me, mentors, how should the Director go about it? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > [* if it is too late to roll back the auction I would think he defers > his investigation until the end of the play.] > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jul 27 20:18:45 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:18:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <001801ca0ecf$d75a02e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> +=+ Thank you, ton, for taking the time and trouble to explain your stance to me. I am not going to reply immediately since I have printed out your remarks and wish to study them carefully before I do. However, the last three lines just above this acknowledgement tend to suggest that I am able to persuade other members of committees against their beliefs and understandings. I think that such as Joan Gerard, John Wignall, Jens Auken, Jean-Paul Meyer, P.O.Sundelin Jeff Polisner, Bill Pencharz, and others of that ilk, might well take the implication amiss. ~Grattan ~ +=+ ton: The story talks about an nbo, one where a certain Herman is the TD. Do you think to find those illustrious people as you mention above in an AC there? No, and furthermore you already expressed your opinion about this issue, I don't know theirs and am still hopeful. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 27 22:49:07 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:49:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. In-Reply-To: <4A6DEDFB.20807@aol.com> References: <001201ca0ea2$7857ef00$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6DEDFB.20807@aol.com> Message-ID: <000401ca0efb$af81cce0$0e8566a0$@no> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > > How about hand records, distributed to the TDs before play begins? This is usual > in most (all?) of the tournaments I direct. Ciao, JE > The Director should never consult these records no more than he should look directly at the cards before making any judgment ruling during auction or play. He should in fact make it absolutely clear at the table that he will not act so that he can be suspected of having made any ruling based on knowledge of the actual cards. He may of course use such records to prepare himself for his possible subsequent ruling should that be called for. This is not "my invention" as implicated by Herman; all Norwegian directors are officially requested to follow this principle, and now I have seen the reply from William J. Schoder to the same effect. Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 27 23:54:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:54:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. References: <001201ca0ea2$7857ef00$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6DEDFB.20807@aol.com> <000401ca0efb$af81cce0$0e8566a0$@no> Message-ID: <002d01ca0f04$d4475190$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Revision of pig's ear. > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson >> >> How about hand records, distributed to the TDs before play begins? This > is usual >> in most (all?) of the tournaments I direct. Ciao, JE >> > > The Director should never consult these records no more than he should > look > directly at the cards before making any judgment ruling during auction or > play. He should in fact make it absolutely clear at the table that he will > not act so that he can be suspected of having made any ruling based on > knowledge of the actual cards. > > He may of course use such records to prepare himself for his possible > subsequent ruling should that be called for. > > This is not "my invention" as implicated by Herman; all Norwegian > directors > are officially requested to follow this principle, and now I have seen the > reply from William J. Schoder to the same effect. > > Regards Sven > +=+ I have no reason to think it can be sound procedure for the Director to make himself aware of the contents of the hand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 28 07:26:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:26:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited disclosure > > > +=+ Thank you, ton, for taking the time and trouble > to explain your stance to me. I am not going to reply > immediately since I have printed out your remarks > and wish to study them carefully before I do. > However, the last three lines just above this > acknowledgement tend to suggest that I am able to > persuade other members of committees against their > beliefs and understandings. I think that such as Joan > Gerard, John Wignall, Jens Auken, Jean-Paul Meyer, > P.O.Sundelin Jeff Polisner, Bill Pencharz, and others > of that ilk, might well take the implication amiss. > ~Grattan ~ +=+ > > > ton: > > The story talks about an nbo, one where a certain > Herman is the TD. Do you think to find those illustrious > people as you mention above in an AC there? > No, and furthermore you already expressed your > opinion about this issue, I don't know theirs and am > still hopeful. > > +=+ OK, ton, you have answered for me. It is certainly my opinion that in each of the 63 cases the Director must examine what he judges would have occurred if the player had only correct explanations of the auction. Would his call have been different? What questions he asks to reach his judgement is a matter for him, but he should avoid disclosing one player's hand to another. In the light of your comment I will not spend time examining the principle in relation to your example. David Burn's example strikes me as a simple illustration of the subject. If the correct explanation of each call, in context, reveals to the player disjointed actions on the part of the opponents he may draw conclusions, but he is not entitled to know that opponents are having a misunderstanding if this is not apparent from the true meanings in context of the calls. . The Director's ruling and any score adjustment should be based upon this principle. The 'illustrious people' and others unnamed are commonly joined by me in appeals committees. If you criticize our joint decisions as you did in an earlier text ["I know that appeal committees (in EBL and WBF events) seem to follow it. Which doesn't prove anything, appeal committees do more wrong than right"], you criticize us all, not me alone. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 07:40:23 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:40:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0907272240v1374e2a9kab9568d5565f365@mail.gmail.com> It seems to me that the mistake Grattan and Herman are making relates to the word "entitled." While it is true that my opponents are not entitled to the knowledge that I have mistaken my agreement or (to take up another example) that I have the ace of spades, if I happen to reveal either, Grattan and Herman should stop saying my opponents are not entitled to that knowledge. I think the opponents are entitled to anything I reveal if the opponents remember it on their own after I accidentally reveal it, whether through my mistaken explanation of the auction or by dropping a card. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090728/d9765416/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 07:49:18 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:49:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0907272240v1374e2a9kab9568d5565f365@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0907272240v1374e2a9kab9568d5565f365@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/7/28 Jerry Fusselman : > It seems to me that the mistake Grattan and Herman are making relates to the > word "entitled." ?While it is true that my opponents are not entitled to the > knowledge that I have mistaken my agreement or (to take up another example) > that I have the ace of spades, if I happen to reveal either, Grattan and > Herman should stop saying my opponents are not entitled to that knowledge. That's not what any of them are saying. They're saying that if you don't reveal this, your opponents are not entitled to that knowledge. And that's what's been the consensus when ruling internationally. (The same goes for Norway.) Ton holds a different opinion. > ?I think the opponents are entitled to anything I reveal Of course they are! Nobody disagrees with this. > if the opponents > remember it on their own after I accidentally reveal it, whether through my > mistaken explanation of the auction or by dropping a card. > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 28 07:56:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:56:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0907272240v1374e2a9kab9568d5565f365@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0907272240v1374e2a9kab9568d5565f365@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:40:23 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > It seems to me that the mistake Grattan and Herman are making relates to > the > word "entitled." While it is true that my opponents are not entitled to > the > knowledge that I have mistaken my agreement or (to take up another > example) > that I have the ace of spades, if I happen to reveal either, Grattan and > Herman should stop saying my opponents are not entitled to that > knowledge. > I think the opponents are entitled to anything I reveal if the opponents > remember it on their own after I accidentally reveal it, whether through > my > mistaken explanation of the auction or by dropping a card. > Jerry Fusselman It seems like the opponents should be entitled to information they have already received. But.... Suppose the infraction/irregularity is that West gave a mistaken explanation. Theprocess of assessing damage starts with asking if the opponents would have done anything differently had the infraction/irregularity not occurred. Which means, in this hypothetical world of the missing infraction, the opponents never receive that information. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jul 28 08:35:59 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:35:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20090728063606.CDB7C990C176@relay2.webreus.nl> Harald: That's not what any of them are saying (ton: I am afraid you are wrong). They're saying that if you don't reveal this, your opponents are not entitled to that knowledge. And that's what's been the consensus when ruling internationally. (The same goes for Norway.) Ton holds a different opinion. ton: To Harald: please read what I copied from a mail yesterday, first three lines mine and the answer from Herman, starting with NO; > that it could well have been influenced by the wrong info. South asks > whether he is allowed to use all info he has received and Herman tells > him that he is, but inferences drawn normally spoken are risks the player has to accept. NO; Herman has read the advice Grattan has given, and answers that South is not allowed to use the wrong info, but only the right one. If he would have made a different call with the correct information in stead of the right one, then he is entitled to do so now. Jerry: > ?I think the opponents are entitled to anything I reveal Harald: Of course they are! Nobody disagrees with this. ton: What 'of course'? And I am not sure about Grattan's opinion. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 08:50:26 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:50:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090728063606.CDB7C990C176@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090728063606.CDB7C990C176@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: 2009/7/28 ton : > Harald: > > That's not what any of them are saying ?(ton: I am afraid you are wrong). > They're saying that if you don't reveal this, your opponents are not > entitled to that knowledge. > And that's what's been the consensus when ruling internationally. (The same > goes for Norway.) Ton holds a different opinion. > > > ton: > To Harald: please read what I copied from a mail yesterday, first three > lines mine and the answer from Herman, starting with NO; Yes, you're right Ton. I didn't read that last post by Herman. It's pretty clear there what he means, which is different from what impression I got earlier in this discussion. > >> that it could well have been influenced by the wrong info. South asks >> whether he is allowed to use all info he has received and Herman tells >> him that he is, but inferences drawn normally spoken are risks the player > has to accept. > > NO; > Herman has read the advice Grattan has given, and answers that South is not > allowed to use the wrong info, but only the right one. If he would have made > a different call with the correct information in stead of the right one, > then he is entitled to do so now. > > > Jerry: >> ?I think the opponents are entitled to anything I reveal > > > Harald: > Of course they are! Nobody disagrees with this. > > ton: > What 'of course'? ? And I am not sure about Grattan's opinion. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 09:34:30 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:34:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > The 'illustrious people' and others unnamed are commonly > joined by me in appeals committees. If you criticize > our joint decisions as you did in an earlier text ["I know > that appeal committees (in EBL and WBF events) seem > to follow it. Which doesn't prove anything, appeal > committees do more wrong than right"], you criticize us > all, not me alone. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Ton is more than wrong to criticize Appeal Committees. If he feels that Appeal Committees in general get ruling wrong (in the law sense, not the judgement sense), then there is something wrong with the way the WBFLC has written the laws for the AC to read. Or there is something wrong with the WBFLC communicating to the ACs that they have misinterpreted the laws. And sorry Grattan, I don't want to blame you for anything. It is Ton who should assign the blame. Does Ton believe that his secretary on the WBFLC has made a mistake in communicating the WBFLC position to the AC members (that is, among others, to himself)? Or should Ton accept that maybe his interpretation is not the WBF's? Or have you not fully discussed this principle. Maybe you should? Who on blml wishes to write the question that should be put before the WBFLC in S?o Paulo? I would offer to do it, but perhaps we can find a less suspect individual to do that job? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 09:38:01 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:38:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0907272240v1374e2a9kab9568d5565f365@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0907272240v1374e2a9kab9568d5565f365@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A6EAAD9.6080700@skynet.be> Hello Jerry, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > It seems to me that the mistake Grattan and Herman are making relates to > the word "entitled." While it is true that my opponents are not > entitled to the knowledge that I have mistaken my agreement or (to take > up another example) that I have the ace of spades, if I happen to reveal > either, Grattan and Herman should stop saying my opponents are not > entitled to that knowledge. Maybe you have not understood the way I intend to use the word "entitled" in bridge legalese. When I say "entitled" I mean that the information must be made available to the opponents. If it isn't, a rectification will follow. When I want to say that opponents can use the information they have, I will call that "authorized" or "allowed". Now maybe that definition does not stroke with normal usage, but it is what I want to convey in blml usage. > I think the opponents are entitled to > anything I reveal if the opponents remember it on their own after I > accidentally reveal it, whether through my mistaken explanation of the > auction or by dropping a card. > Change the word entitled into authorized and your sentence is correct. But they are not entitled to all that information. OK? > Jerry Fusselman > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 09:39:23 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:39:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090728063606.CDB7C990C176@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090728063606.CDB7C990C176@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6EAB2B.8060102@skynet.be> Ton is right in questioning Harald's last sentence: ton wrote: > > > Jerry: >> I think the opponents are entitled to anything I reveal > > > Harald: > Of course they are! Nobody disagrees with this. > > ton: > What 'of course'? And I am not sure about Grattan's opinion. > No, they are not entitled to those things - they are authorized to use it! Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 09:40:45 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:40:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: References: <20090728063606.CDB7C990C176@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6EAB7D.4070108@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/7/28 ton : >> Harald: >> >> That's not what any of them are saying (ton: I am afraid you are wrong). >> They're saying that if you don't reveal this, your opponents are not >> entitled to that knowledge. >> And that's what's been the consensus when ruling internationally. (The same >> goes for Norway.) Ton holds a different opinion. >> >> >> ton: >> To Harald: please read what I copied from a mail yesterday, first three >> lines mine and the answer from Herman, starting with NO; > > Yes, you're right Ton. I didn't read that last post by Herman. It's > pretty clear there what he means, which is different from what > impression I got earlier in this discussion. > That is because I changed my opinion when Grattan pointed out to us that there is no absolute authorization to change your call after a change of explanation. You see, I do change my mind sometimes, when it is pointed out to me that I am wrong! Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Jul 28 11:50:37 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:50:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0907272240v1374e2a9kab9568d5565f365@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: [JF] It seems to me that the mistake Grattan and Herman are making relates to the word "entitled." ?While it is true that my opponents are not entitled to the knowledge that I have mistaken my agreement or (to take up another example) that I have the ace of spades, if I happen to reveal either, Grattan and Herman should stop saying my opponents are not entitled to that knowledge. I think the opponents are entitled to anything I reveal if the opponents remember it on their own after I accidentally reveal it, whether through my mistaken explanation of the auction or by dropping a card. [DALB] To clarify, using my previous example in which South opens 2H explained by North as strong when the partnership agreement is that 2H is weak: If North realises that he has given the wrong explanation before the auction ends, he is legally obliged immediately to give the correct explanation. But if he does not, then he is not. South must correct the explanation before the opening lead, but an opponent who now wants to change his pass over 4H to double will not be permitted to do so unless his hand alone, rather than his knowledge of the opponents' misunderstanding, warrants a double. Hence, a North who does realise before the auction ends that he has misexplained would be well advised to keep quiet about it, because if he speaks up when the Laws say he should, his result will be 4H doubled going down, whereas if he does not, his result may be 4H undoubled going down. If a North who obeys the Laws by speaking up when he should will get a worse result than a North who disobeys the Laws (either through ignorance or through malice) then the Laws are not doing their job of protecting the innocent from damage. In order to resolve this dilemma, one might say that East-West are "entitled" to the knowledge that North gave the wrong explanation, and should be deemed to have received that knowledge before it was too late for them to do anything about it. After all, that is what would have happened had everyone followed the Laws. If one presumes this "entitlement", then it does not matter whether North failed to correct through ignorance (either of his error in not knowing what 2H meant or of the Law that requires him to correct in timely fashion) or through malice; one simply assumes for the purposes of adjustment that North actually provided a timely correction. Or, one might do something else, such as "treating each case on its merits" or all the other stupid things LCs and ACs and TDs do in order to avoid administering the game in anything resembling a consistent and comprehensible fashion. Meanwhile, if you are North, my advice to you is to correct your explanation when the Laws require, but to use this form of words: "Did I say strong? Silly me - I meant to say weak, of course." That way, the opponents will not know that you thought 2H was strong when you raised it, but will believe only that you misspoke. This is cheating, of course, but so is almost everything else. David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 13:00:42 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:00:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two Message-ID: <4A6EDA5A.3040608@skynet.be> I wanted to answer to David Burn, but I think he touches on a different subject, and that thread was too deep for my mailer, so I start a new one. But I still copy what David Burn wrote: > > To clarify, using my previous example in which South opens 2H > explained by North as strong when the partnership agreement is that > 2H is weak: > > If North realises that he has given the wrong explanation before the auction > ends, he is legally obliged immediately to give the correct explanation. But > if he does not, then he is not. South must correct the explanation > before the opening lead, but an opponent who now wants to change his > pass over 4H to double will not be permitted to do so unless his hand > alone, rather than > his knowledge of the opponents' misunderstanding, warrants a double. > > Hence, a North who does realise before the auction ends that he has > misexplained would be well advised to keep quiet about it, because if > he speaks up when the Laws say he should, his result will be 4H > doubled going down, whereas if he does not, his result may be 4H > undoubled going down. > A logical conclusion. Now let us first investigate when this could happen: a) we need a player to discover that he was wrong. That usually happens only when his partner makes a call that he did not expect. If that call is a bid (or a double), he can bid again, and so to speak up should not be negative; so we need a secondary condition: that the bidding is already too high; a second possibility is: b) that partner passes, and that now revealing the misunderstanding will cause fourth hand not to reopen the bidding. I think these conditions are strange enough so that we can consider this problem a minor one. But of course it can still happen, and then David's realisation is correct: there is a possibility for a cheat to gain something by not revealing that he has misexplained. Should we do something about that? > If a North who obeys the Laws by speaking up when he should will get > a worse > result than a North who disobeys the Laws (either through ignorance > or through malice) then the Laws are not doing their job of > protecting the innocent from damage. > > In order to resolve this dilemma, one might say that East-West are > "entitled" to the knowledge that North gave the wrong explanation, That is one solution. Another one is to make the "keeping silent" within the rules. Then too, both the cheat and the innocent will act according to the laws, and the same. > and should be deemed to have received that knowledge before it was > too late for > them to do anything about it. After all, that is what would have > happened had everyone followed the Laws. If one presumes this > "entitlement", then it > does not matter whether North failed to correct through ignorance (either of > his error in not knowing what 2H meant or of the Law that requires > him to correct in timely fashion) or through malice; one simply > assumes for the purposes of adjustment that North actually provided a > timely correction. > > Or, one might do something else, such as "treating each case on its merits" > or all the other stupid things LCs and ACs and TDs do in order to > avoid administering the game in anything resembling a consistent and > comprehensible fashion. Meanwhile, if you are North, my advice to you > is to > correct your explanation when the Laws require, but to use this form > of words: "Did I say strong? Silly me - I meant to say weak, of > course." That way, the opponents will not know that you thought 2H > was strong when you raised it, but will believe only that you > misspoke. This is cheating, of course, but so is almost everything > else. > Why would it be cheating? You are giving correct information, which is all they are entitled to. You are hiding that you previously thought it was weak, womething which they are not entitled to. You are making the same mistake yet again, David, of transposing within bridge crimes (lying) which are only illegal outside of the bridge game. > David Burn London, England > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jul 28 13:38:40 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:38:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <4A6EDA5A.3040608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20090728113846.688CE990C1EA@relay2.webreus.nl> David: > but to use this form > of words: "Did I say strong? Silly me - I meant to say weak, of > course." That way, the opponents will not know that you thought 2H was > strong when you raised it, but will believe only that you misspoke. > This is cheating, of course, but so is almost everything else. > Herman: Why would it be cheating? You are giving correct information, which is all they are entitled to. You are hiding that you previously thought it was weak, womething which they are not entitled to. You are making the same mistake yet again, David, of transposing within bridge crimes (lying) which are only illegal outside of the bridge game. Ton to David: Of course you have made a mistake again David, listen to Herman. And since I am with you, the conclusion can be that both of us don't understand the laws nor the game. I am interested in the following sentence in your reaction: 'South must correct the explanation before the opening lead, but an opponent who now wants to change his pass over 4H to double will not be permitted to do so unless his hand alone, rather than his knowledge of the opponents' misunderstanding, warrants a double'. You translate here what L21B1(a) states (I assume). Do you agree with me that this opponent has a lot of info available to get a fair idea about the three other hands, which makes it possible to come up with decisions for his call that without the MI would not occur to him? If not what do you mean? I assume that I can replace 'double' in this sentence for any other relevant call in other situations. I give the following example: S/EW W N E S 1NT 2D pass pass North has 974 K84 AKJT85 5, waited for an alert on the 2D bid for a split second, but without it he passed. After the pass by East he (East) calls the TD telling that he should have alerted 2D, it being a transfer. 'Herman' explains that North is allowed to change his call etc. etc (up to Max and Kojak) and if he changes it East may also change his call. Normally spoken (or, without the MI had East alerted the 2D in time) North would have doubled. Is there anybody out there who does not allow North to pass? (I am not waiting for Alain telling me that this technically spoken is not the right choice) What do you mean with your statement above, David? ton From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 28 14:05:05 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:05:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <4A6EDA5A.3040608@skynet.be> References: <4A6EDA5A.3040608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01ca0f7b$a533cd30$ef9b6790$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > Now let us first investigate when this could happen: > a) we need a player to discover that he was wrong. That usually happens only > when his partner makes a call that he did not expect. If that call is a bid (or a > double), he can bid again, and so to speak up should not be negative; so we need > a secondary condition: that the bidding is already too high; a second possibility is: > b) that partner passes, and that now revealing the misunderstanding will cause > fourth hand not to reopen the bidding. > > I think these conditions are strange enough so that we can consider this problem > a minor one. I'll snip the rest because I believe what was written so far opens the door for a precise and definitely not just hypothetical question: The auction goes: (For simplicity we say that North is the dealer) 2H - PASS - PASS - ? 2H was explained as weak, but the correct explanation is that it is strong and absolute game forcing. Now West reopens the auction with a call other than PASS, exactly which call is irrelevant for this question. North then bids 4H, all pass, North calls the Director and informs that his 2H bid was indeed strong and game forcing, not weak as explained by South. West regrets giving North the chance to reach a game contract, but that is too late to change now, and North just makes his contract. Does West have any case for requesting an assigned adjusted score of 2H+2 = 170 for North/South? Anybody reluctant to comment without cards to look at may assume North with some 25 HCP and a very solid Heart suit, West holding some 12 HCP (distributed values). Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 28 14:28:42 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:28:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <4A6EDA5A.3040608@skynet.be> References: <4A6EDA5A.3040608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A6EEEFA.2040306@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > >> If a North who obeys the Laws by speaking up when he should will get >> a worse result than a North who disobeys the Laws (either through ignorance >> or through malice) then the Laws are not doing their job of >> protecting the innocent from damage. >> >> In order to resolve this dilemma, one might say that East-West are >> "entitled" to the knowledge that North gave the wrong explanation, >> > > That is one solution. Another one is to make the "keeping silent" within > the rules. Then too, both the cheat and the innocent will act according > to the laws, and the same. > > AG : there are some points of law that seem to have been prompted by this consideration, e.g. the fact that you're not compelled to state that you revoked. I think the rationale behind this item is that, since you can't compel the dishonest to speak, the only remaining possibility is to exempt the honest from doing so. But this is a makeshift solution. L72B (old) says that, in general, you aren't compelled to signal your own infraction, with erroneous explanations an exception. The question is : why is there an exception ? There surely was a good reason for this. Can somebody state it ? >> correct your explanation when the Laws require, but to use this form >> of words: "Did I say strong? Silly me - I meant to say weak, of >> course." That way, the opponents will not know that you thought 2H >> was strong when you raised it, but will believe only that you >> misspoke. This is cheating, of course, but so is almost everything >> else. >> >> > > Why would it be cheating? You are giving correct information, which is > all they are entitled to. AG : you even tell them you're silly, which is probably correct information too (with momentary aspect rather than permansive, of course, i.e. "estoy stu pido", not "soy"). And you avoid transmitting UI about how you reacted to partner's bid. Not a bad idea either. Indeed, I don't see where's cheating there. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 28 14:35:45 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:35:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <20090728113846.688CE990C1EA@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090728113846.688CE990C1EA@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6EF0A1.5040208@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > David: > > >> but to use this form >> of words: "Did I say strong? Silly me - I meant to say weak, of >> course." That way, the opponents will not know that you thought 2H was >> strong when you raised it, but will believe only that you misspoke. >> This is cheating, of course, but so is almost everything else. >> >> > > Herman: > Why would it be cheating? You are giving correct information, which is all > they are entitled to. You are hiding that you previously thought it was > weak, womething which they are not entitled to. > You are making the same mistake yet again, David, of transposing within > bridge crimes (lying) which are only illegal outside of the bridge game. > > > Ton to David: > Of course you have made a mistake again David, listen to Herman. > And since I am with you, the conclusion can be that both of us don't > understand the laws nor the game. > > I am interested in the following sentence in your reaction: > > 'South must correct the explanation before the opening lead, but an opponent > who now wants to change his pass over 4H to double will not be permitted to > do so unless his hand alone, rather than his knowledge of the opponents' > misunderstanding, warrants a double'. > > You translate here what L21B1(a) states (I assume). > > Do you agree with me that this opponent has a lot of info available to get a > fair idea about the three other hands, which makes it possible to come up > with decisions for his call that without the MI would not occur to him? If > not what do you mean? I assume that I can replace 'double' in this sentence > for any other relevant call in other situations. > > I give the following example: > S/EW > W N E S > 1NT > 2D pass pass > > North has 974 K84 AKJT85 5, waited for an alert on the 2D bid for a split > second, but without it he passed. > > After the pass by East he (East) calls the TD telling that he should have > alerted 2D, it being a transfer. 'Herman' explains that North is allowed to > change his call etc. etc (up to Max and Kojak) and if he changes it East may > also change his call. > > Normally spoken (or, without the MI had East alerted the 2D in time) North > would have doubled. Is there anybody out there who does not allow North to > pass? (I am not waiting for Alain telling me that this technically spoken is > not the right choice) > AG : I don't understand your interpretation of my views. So perhaps they're not mine. Of course North is allowed to maintain his pass. So what ? Ah yes, it wouldn't have happened absent the infraction. Too bad for the OS. But of course, if East realizes the bid is a transfer, he'll state it before bidding, and *then* the state of the deal "before infraction" will be reinstated. The only objection I have is that waiting a split second is too little. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 28 14:40:34 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:40:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <000a01ca0f7b$a533cd30$ef9b6790$@no> References: <4A6EDA5A.3040608@skynet.be> <000a01ca0f7b$a533cd30$ef9b6790$@no> Message-ID: <4A6EF1C2.7080702@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... > >> Now let us first investigate when this could happen: >> a) we need a player to discover that he was wrong. That usually happens >> > only > >> when his partner makes a call that he did not expect. If that call is a >> > bid (or a > >> double), he can bid again, and so to speak up should not be negative; so >> > we need > >> a secondary condition: that the bidding is already too high; a second >> > possibility is: > >> b) that partner passes, and that now revealing the misunderstanding will >> > cause > >> fourth hand not to reopen the bidding. >> >> I think these conditions are strange enough so that we can consider this >> > problem > >> a minor one. >> > > I'll snip the rest because I believe what was written so far opens the door > for a precise and definitely not just hypothetical question: > > The auction goes: (For simplicity we say that North is the dealer) > > 2H - PASS - PASS - ? > > 2H was explained as weak, but the correct explanation is that it is strong > and absolute game forcing. > > Now West reopens the auction with a call other than PASS, exactly which call > is irrelevant for this question. North then bids 4H, all pass, North calls > the Director and informs that his 2H bid was indeed strong and game forcing, > not weak as explained by South. West regrets giving North the chance to > reach a game contract, but that is too late to change now, and North just > makes his contract. > > Does West have any case for requesting an assigned adjusted score of 2H+2 = > 170 for North/South? > > AG : he has. Had he been given the right explanation, i.e. that RHO passed a game force, surely he would have passed. Notice that the knowledge of the misunderstanding doesn't come from the fact that the explanation was late (in which case some would object), but from the pass itself, which is a bridge fact. Add screens : LHO explain to you that his bid is GF, and RHO passes it. No need for corrected explanation to understand what happens. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 28 15:02:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:02:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:50:37 -0400, David Burn wrote: > [JF] > > It seems to me that the mistake Grattan and Herman are making relates to > the > word "entitled." ?While it is true that my opponents are not entitled to > the > knowledge that I have mistaken my agreement or (to take up another > example) > that I have the ace of spades, if I happen to reveal either, Grattan and > Herman should stop saying my opponents are not entitled to that > knowledge. > > I think the opponents are entitled to anything I reveal if the opponents > remember it on their own after I accidentally reveal it, whether through > my > mistaken explanation of the auction or by dropping a card. > > [DALB] > > To clarify, using my previous example in which South opens 2H explained > by > North as strong when the partnership agreement is that 2H is weak: > > If North realises that he has given the wrong explanation before the > auction > ends, he is legally obliged immediately to give the correct explanation. > But > if he does not, then he is not. South must correct the explanation before > the opening lead, but an opponent who now wants to change his pass over > 4H > to double will not be permitted to do so unless his hand alone, rather > than > his knowledge of the opponents' misunderstanding, warrants a double. > > Hence, a North who does realise before the auction ends that he has > misexplained would be well advised to keep quiet about it, because if he > speaks up when the Laws say he should, his result will be 4H doubled > going > down, whereas if he does not, his result may be 4H undoubled going down. > > If a North who obeys the Laws by speaking up when he should will get a > worse > result than a North who disobeys the Laws (either through ignorance or > through malice) then the Laws are not doing their job of protecting the > innocent from damage. The places in the laws where a player can gain an advantage by hiding known information are somewhat numerous. They include not pointing out a scoring error, claiming a bid was unintended when it was intended, saying that one would have made a bid had the auction been different, and perhaps not correcting a unestablished revoke. For better or worse, the laws apparently allow these situations to occur and for cheaters to gain an advantage. > > In order to resolve this dilemma, one might say that East-West are > "entitled" to the knowledge that North gave the wrong explanation, and > should be deemed to have received that knowledge before it was too late > for > them to do anything about it. After all, that is what would have happened > had everyone followed the Laws. If one presumes this "entitlement", then > it > does not matter whether North failed to correct through ignorance > (either of > his error in not knowing what 2H meant or of the Law that requires him to > correct in timely fashion) or through malice; one simply assumes for the > purposes of adjustment that North actually provided a timely correction. > > Or, one might do something else, such as "treating each case on its > merits" > or all the other stupid things LCs and ACs and TDs do in order to avoid > administering the game in anything resembling a consistent and > comprehensible fashion. Meanwhile, if you are North, my advice to you is > to > correct your explanation when the Laws require, but to use this form of > words: "Did I say strong? Silly me - I meant to say weak, of course." > That > way, the opponents will not know that you thought 2H was strong when you > raised it, but will believe only that you misspoke. This is cheating, of > course, but so is almost everything else. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 15:18:22 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:18:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <20090728113846.688CE990C1EA@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090728113846.688CE990C1EA@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6EFA9E.5020608@skynet.be> ton wrote: > Ton to David: > Of course you have made a mistake again David, listen to Herman. I resent this sentence. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 15:25:59 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:25:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <20090728113846.688CE990C1EA@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090728113846.688CE990C1EA@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6EFC67.20204@skynet.be> ton wrote: > > I give the following example: > S/EW > W N E S > 1NT > 2D pass pass > > North has 974 K84 AKJT85 5, waited for an alert on the 2D bid for a split > second, but without it he passed. > > After the pass by East he (East) calls the TD telling that he should have > alerted 2D, it being a transfer. 'Herman' explains that North is allowed to > change his call etc. etc (up to Max and Kojak) and if he changes it East may > also change his call. > This is precisely the kind of example that I warned David about: this is a very rare occurence: you have here a player who realizes his mistake in explanation without any happenings (no next bid of partner), but after having made the terrible mistake of passing. That, for me, is a very rare occurence, and I don't accept that it be used to prove anything. Yes, in this case the opponents get a piece of information they are not entitled to, and they can use it. So what? There are a number of far more frequent occurences that are possible with this example. The most frequent being that East is asleep, and has failed to alert promptly. He does so when he notices, but before he passes. North doubles, and East bids whatever he likes, knowing his partner has hearts. The next frequent thing will be that East stays asleep, passes, and says nothing (not because he is a cheat, but because he honestly forgot that 2D was a transfer). South now passes (let's say), West corrects the explanation and the TD will allow North to double. Now the case becomes interesting, since the AI about the mistake will tell him that he should NOT change his call, even though the TD will allow him. So yes, there are still cases where the mistake becomes knwoledge at the table and not in the TD's mind only. So, the laws are not yet perfect! > Normally spoken (or, without the MI had East alerted the 2D in time) North > would have doubled. Is there anybody out there who does not allow North to > pass? (I am not waiting for Alain telling me that this technically spoken is > not the right choice) > What do you mean with your statement above, David? > > > ton > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 15:29:50 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:29:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <000a01ca0f7b$a533cd30$ef9b6790$@no> References: <4A6EDA5A.3040608@skynet.be> <000a01ca0f7b$a533cd30$ef9b6790$@no> Message-ID: <4A6EFD4E.8070609@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I'll snip the rest because I believe what was written so far opens the door > for a precise and definitely not just hypothetical question: > > The auction goes: (For simplicity we say that North is the dealer) > > 2H - PASS - PASS - ? > > 2H was explained as weak, but the correct explanation is that it is strong > and absolute game forcing. > > Now West reopens the auction with a call other than PASS, exactly which call > is irrelevant for this question. North then bids 4H, all pass, North calls > the Director and informs that his 2H bid was indeed strong and game forcing, > not weak as explained by South. West regrets giving North the chance to > reach a game contract, but that is too late to change now, and North just > makes his contract. > > Does West have any case for requesting an assigned adjusted score of 2H+2 = > 170 for North/South? > > Anybody reluctant to comment without cards to look at may assume North with > some 25 HCP and a very solid Heart suit, West holding some 12 HCP > (distributed values). > I fail to see the relevance. If 2H is explained as strong, would west not pass? Is this not a simple MI case? Why should West need the knowledge of the mistake to want to change his call to pass? And there is another point: do you need to know any of the cards to rule that the bid of 4H is based on the misexplanation that 2H was considered weak? This is a very badly constructed example, Sven. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 15:34:32 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:34:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <4A6EEEFA.2040306@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A6EDA5A.3040608@skynet.be> <4A6EEEFA.2040306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A6EFE68.1000404@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > L72B (old) says that, in general, you aren't compelled to signal your > own infraction, with erroneous explanations an exception. > The question is : why is there an exception ? There surely was a good > reason for this. Can somebody state it ? > I can hazzard a guess: The actual text says "he must immediately notify the director". Not the table, the director. Maybe this is just to prevent clever opponents of taking advantage, by changing their calls when the director would not allow them to do so (as per Grattan's interpretation). Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jul 28 15:45:25 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:45:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <4A6EFD4E.8070609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20090728134625.3F969990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> I fail to see the relevance. If 2H is explained as strong, would west not pass? Is this not a simple MI case? Why should West need the knowledge of the mistake to want to change his call to pass? And there is another point: do you need to know any of the cards to rule that the bid of 4H is based on the misexplanation that 2H was considered weak? This is a very badly constructed example, Sven. Herman. ton: You (Herman) would once more resent the remark I had in mind for you. I am not discussing this issue to upset you, though you make it almost impossible not to arrive there. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 28 15:54:20 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:54:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <20090728134625.3F969990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090728134625.3F969990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6F030C.7060603@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > > > I fail to see the relevance. If 2H is explained as strong, would west not > pass? Is this not a simple MI case? Why should West need the knowledge of > the mistake to want to change his call to pass? > And there is another point: do you need to know any of the cards to rule > that the bid of 4H is based on the misexplanation that 2H was considered > weak? > This is a very badly constructed example, Sven. > > Herman. > > > ton: > > You (Herman) would once more resent the remark I had in mind for you. I am > not discussing this issue to upset you, though you make it almost impossible > not to arrive there. > > I'm sorry, Ton, but this is indeed an example irrelevant to our problem. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 28 15:54:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:54:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: Message-ID: <001601ca0f8b$061fab50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited disclosure Hence, a North who does realise before the auction ends that he has misexplained would be well advised to keep quiet about it, because if he speaks up when the Laws say he should, his result will be 4H doubled going down, whereas if he does not, his result may be 4H undoubled going down. +=+ I am not clear, David, why you should say this. In my understanding (but see exception * below) the knowledge that E or W might use to double when North speaks up in timely fashion does not appear to be derived from the legal auction [Law 16A1(a)], nor from a withdrawn action [16A1(b) with 16D], nor from information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized [Law 16A1(c)]. In these circumstances the information from which the knowledge derives is extraneous, Law 16A3 applies (and Law 16A4 if such information is used). *The exception that I make is when the legal auction, inclusive of correct explanations in context, itself gives evidence of disjointed actions by NS. I referred to this in an earlier text. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 28 15:56:29 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:56:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:34:30 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan wrote: >> The 'illustrious people' and others unnamed are commonly >> joined by me in appeals committees. If you criticize >> our joint decisions as you did in an earlier text ["I know >> that appeal committees (in EBL and WBF events) seem >> to follow it. Which doesn't prove anything, appeal >> committees do more wrong than right"], you criticize us >> all, not me alone. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Ton is more than wrong to criticize Appeal Committees. If he feels that > Appeal Committees in general get ruling wrong (in the law sense, not the > judgement sense), then there is something wrong with the way the WBFLC > has written the laws for the AC to read. Or there is something wrong > with the WBFLC communicating to the ACs that they have misinterpreted > the laws. > And sorry Grattan, I don't want to blame you for anything. It is Ton who > should assign the blame. Does Ton believe that his secretary on the > WBFLC has made a mistake in communicating the WBFLC position to the AC > members (that is, among others, to himself)? Or should Ton accept that > maybe his interpretation is not the WBF's? Or have you not fully > discussed this principle. Maybe you should? > > Who on blml wishes to write the question that should be put before the > WBFLC in S?o Paulo? I would offer to do it, but perhaps we can find a > less suspect individual to do that job? When the director assesses whether a player would have made a different call had he not been given misinformation (in L21B1(a) or L21B3), the current table position is compared to _____ 1. if the player had been given the correct information instead of the misinformation 2. if the player had been given the correct information in addition to the misinformation. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 28 16:21:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:21:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl><002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002701ca0f8e$b2aceb50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:34:30 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > And sorry Grattan, I don't want to blame you for > anything. It is Ton who > should assign the blame. Does Ton believe that his > secretary on the WBFLC has made a mistake in > communicating the WBFLC position to the AC > members (that is, among others, to himself)? Or > should Ton accept that maybe his interpretation > is not the WBF's? Or have you not fully > discussed this principle. Maybe you should? > +=+ It is the Chief Tournament Director who communicates the law to the TAC. under Law 93B3. As chairman of an appeals committee I have, on at least one occasion in the past, summoned the CTD to specify the law to us. The Director or the TAC may refer a point of law to the Laws Committee. Under WBF (but not EBL) regulations an appeal on a point of law may be made. This does not go to the TAC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 28 16:45:51 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:45:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A6F0F1F.4080808@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:34:30 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >> Grattan wrote: >> >>> The 'illustrious people' and others unnamed are commonly >>> joined by me in appeals committees. If you criticize >>> our joint decisions as you did in an earlier text ["I know >>> that appeal committees (in EBL and WBF events) seem >>> to follow it. Which doesn't prove anything, appeal >>> committees do more wrong than right"], you criticize us >>> all, not me alone. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> Ton is more than wrong to criticize Appeal Committees. If he feels that >> Appeal Committees in general get ruling wrong (in the law sense, not the >> judgement sense), then there is something wrong with the way the WBFLC >> has written the laws for the AC to read. Or there is something wrong >> with the WBFLC communicating to the ACs that they have misinterpreted >> the laws. >> And sorry Grattan, I don't want to blame you for anything. It is Ton who >> should assign the blame. Does Ton believe that his secretary on the >> WBFLC has made a mistake in communicating the WBFLC position to the AC >> members (that is, among others, to himself)? Or should Ton accept that >> maybe his interpretation is not the WBF's? Or have you not fully >> discussed this principle. Maybe you should? >> >> Who on blml wishes to write the question that should be put before the >> WBFLC in S?o Paulo? I would offer to do it, but perhaps we can find a >> less suspect individual to do that job? >> > > When the director assesses whether a player would have made a different > call had he not been given misinformation (in L21B1(a) or L21B3), the > current table position is compared to _____ > > 1. if the player had been given the correct information instead of the > misinformation > > 2. if the player had been given the correct information in addition to the > misinformation. > AG : with the added case of when the knowledge of the discrepancy doesn't come from the explanations, but from the action at the table (as in Ton's biased example) From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jul 28 17:07:36 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:07:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <4A6F030C.7060603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20090728150743.A125C990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> Alain: I'm sorry, Ton, but this is indeed an example irrelevant to our problem. ton: Yes, you are probably right but it is not so easy to understand what is going on and if I give an example, then it is not relevant because it very rarely ever happens. Well , I can give numerous examples each of which hardly ever happens but altogether they form a class of problems we have fundamental different views about. I don't think that 'very badly constructed' is helpful to solve these problems. And the remark by Herman that 4H is based on the MI is not relevant either, 6H should be, but with an absolute game forcing hand North does not have a logical alternative in pass, don't you think? We have a nice saying in Dutch with the clock and the clapper. ton From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 28 17:21:29 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:21:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <4A6F030C.7060603@ulb.ac.be> References: <20090728134625.3F969990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A6F030C.7060603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001ca0f97$1508ff70$3f1afe50$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > ton a ?crit : > > > > > > I fail to see the relevance. If 2H is explained as strong, would west > > not pass? Is this not a simple MI case? Why should West need the > > knowledge of the mistake to want to change his call to pass? > > And there is another point: do you need to know any of the cards to > > rule that the bid of 4H is based on the misexplanation that 2H was > > considered weak? > > This is a very badly constructed example, Sven. > > > > Herman. > > > > > > ton: > > > > You (Herman) would once more resent the remark I had in mind for you. > > I am not discussing this issue to upset you, though you make it almost > > impossible not to arrive there. > > > > > I'm sorry, Ton, but this is indeed an example irrelevant to our problem. Jointly to Alain and Herman: Why is my example irrelevant? Don't forget that at the time West reopened the auction he (incorrectly) "knew" that the 2H opening bid was weak. Would any of you have passed in this situation? I believe we all agree that if we knew 2H is a very strong bid and that consequently the pass from South must have been caused by misunderstanding PASS is our only logical alternative. Do you consider the example irrelevant because no South in the world would have passed in this position if he had remembered and correctly explained the 2H bid? Or do you consider it irrelevant because there can be no doubt that the result must be adjusted to 2H+2? To me it is obvious that the reopening call from West was based on misinformation and has given the offending side (North/South) an advantage. That is the condition for Law 21B3 to apply and the result shall be adjusted to the expected result had West had available correct information at the time he selected his call, i.e. AFTER South had passed. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 28 17:23:30 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:23:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <20090728150743.A125C990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090728150743.A125C990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6F17F2.1090300@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > > > > Alain: > > I'm sorry, Ton, but this is indeed an example irrelevant to our problem. > > ton: > Yes, you are probably right but it is not so easy to understand what is > going on > and if I give an example, then it is not relevant because it very rarely > ever happens. > Indeed. But ... > Well , I can give numerous examples each of which hardly ever happens but > altogether they form a class of problems we have fundamental different views > about. > I think there are three different types of problems : 1. Without explicit mention, you wouldn't know here was a misunderstanding 2. The knowledge of a misunderstanding springs from the misexplanation and correction 3. The knowledge of the misunderstanding is obvious from the bidding (your 2H opening example) Since we all agree about items 1 and 3, let's concentrate on examples of case 2. Then, not mentioning your own misexplanation gives you an advantage, and that's the problem we're addressing : are you allowed to shut up, is it possible to detect that you intentionally shut up, and what are the changes with screens on or at online bridge ? And second point : will the knowledge of the misexplanation be useful enough to admit in most cases the NOS's claim that they would have acted otherwise ? And that's where I come in, to answer to the negative. and, indeed, to falsify most examples as either artificial or irrelevant. In fact, when it seems so difficult to find an appropriate example, this usually means something. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 17:30:52 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:30:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A6F19AC.8000705@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > When the director assesses whether a player would have made a different > call had he not been given misinformation (in L21B1(a) or L21B3), the > current table position is compared to _____ > > 1. if the player had been given the correct information instead of the > misinformation > > 2. if the player had been given the correct information in addition to the > misinformation. > Good question. Grattan? From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 17:32:49 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:32:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <20090728134625.3F969990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090728134625.3F969990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A6F1A21.8010205@skynet.be> ton wrote: > > > I fail to see the relevance. If 2H is explained as strong, would west not > pass? Is this not a simple MI case? Why should West need the knowledge of > the mistake to want to change his call to pass? > And there is another point: do you need to know any of the cards to rule > that the bid of 4H is based on the misexplanation that 2H was considered > weak? > This is a very badly constructed example, Sven. > > Herman. > > > ton: > > You (Herman) would once more resent the remark I had in mind for you. I am > not discussing this issue to upset you, though you make it almost impossible > not to arrive there. > I have absolutely no idea, Ton, as to why you would choose to attack me on the basis of this post in reply to Sven. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 17:41:32 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:41:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <000001ca0f97$1508ff70$3f1afe50$@no> References: <20090728134625.3F969990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A6F030C.7060603@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca0f97$1508ff70$3f1afe50$@no> Message-ID: <4A6F1C2C.6070200@skynet.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner >> ton a ?crit : >>> >>> I fail to see the relevance. If 2H is explained as strong, would west >>> not pass? Is this not a simple MI case? Why should West need the >>> knowledge of the mistake to want to change his call to pass? >>> And there is another point: do you need to know any of the cards to >>> rule that the bid of 4H is based on the misexplanation that 2H was >>> considered weak? >>> This is a very badly constructed example, Sven. >>> >>> Herman. >>> >>> >>> ton: >>> >>> You (Herman) would once more resent the remark I had in mind for you. >>> I am not discussing this issue to upset you, though you make it almost >>> impossible not to arrive there. >>> >>> >> I'm sorry, Ton, but this is indeed an example irrelevant to our problem. > > Jointly to Alain and Herman: > > Why is my example irrelevant? > I said that it was badly constructed. It has too many UI and MI issues in it. When we have addressed those issues, there is no more case to answer. > Don't forget that at the time West reopened the auction he (incorrectly) > "knew" that the 2H opening bid was weak. Would any of you have passed in > this situation? > No, of course not. But if he knew it was strong, he would most probably pass, even without knowing South had misunderstood. > I believe we all agree that if we knew 2H is a very strong bid and that > consequently the pass from South must have been caused by misunderstanding > PASS is our only logical alternative. > Well, it can be two ways: if it is just Acol-two strong, then pass is possible; and even if it is GF (with hearts), pass is a possible bid for a guy with zero points. Why should you then re-open. And the same applies to North. He hears his partner pass, on whatever strong hand he has shown: should he not accept that choice? > Do you consider the example irrelevant because no South in the world would > have passed in this position if he had remembered and correctly explained > the 2H bid? > No. > Or do you consider it irrelevant because there can be no doubt that the > result must be adjusted to 2H+2? > Yes, probably. And you don't need any of the difficult decisions we are talking about in order to do it. The main reason why I believe it is irrelevant is that these things do not happen: No-one suddenly remembers he has misexplained _after_ bidding. They think for a long time about what to bid, in the meantime also remembering their system. And they change their explanation if they find it was wrong. But after bidding, they swithc off their mind and do not reconsider. So this case will not happen in real life. > To me it is obvious that the reopening call from West was based on > misinformation obvious, indeed; but not necessarily on the information about a misunderstanding. And that is what we are talking about - not simple MI. > and has given the offending side (North/South) an advantage. > That is the condition for Law 21B3 to apply and the result shall be adjusted > to the expected result had West had available correct information at the > time he selected his call, i.e. AFTER South had passed. > > Sven > Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 28 17:52:59 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:52:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6F0F1F.4080808@ulb.ac.be> References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> <4A6F0F1F.4080808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:45:51 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:34:30 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >> >>> Grattan wrote: >>> >>>> The 'illustrious people' and others unnamed are commonly >>>> joined by me in appeals committees. If you criticize >>>> our joint decisions as you did in an earlier text ["I know >>>> that appeal committees (in EBL and WBF events) seem >>>> to follow it. Which doesn't prove anything, appeal >>>> committees do more wrong than right"], you criticize us >>>> all, not me alone. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>> >>> Ton is more than wrong to criticize Appeal Committees. If he feels that >>> Appeal Committees in general get ruling wrong (in the law sense, not >>> the >>> judgement sense), then there is something wrong with the way the WBFLC >>> has written the laws for the AC to read. Or there is something wrong >>> with the WBFLC communicating to the ACs that they have misinterpreted >>> the laws. >>> And sorry Grattan, I don't want to blame you for anything. It is Ton >>> who >>> should assign the blame. Does Ton believe that his secretary on the >>> WBFLC has made a mistake in communicating the WBFLC position to the AC >>> members (that is, among others, to himself)? Or should Ton accept that >>> maybe his interpretation is not the WBF's? Or have you not fully >>> discussed this principle. Maybe you should? >>> >>> Who on blml wishes to write the question that should be put before the >>> WBFLC in S?o Paulo? I would offer to do it, but perhaps we can find a >>> less suspect individual to do that job? >>> >> >> When the director assesses whether a player would have made a different >> call had he not been given misinformation (in L21B1(a) or L21B3), the >> current table position is compared to _____ >> >> 1. if the player had been given the correct information instead of the >> misinformation >> >> 2. if the player had been given the correct information in addition to >> the >> misinformation. >> > AG : with the added case of when the knowledge of the discrepancy > doesn't come from the explanations, but from the action at the table (as > in Ton's biased example) Good point. Does this solve it? 1. If the correct explanation replaces the incorrect explanation. 2. If the correct explanation is added to the incorrect explanation From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 28 20:48:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:48:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> <4A6F19AC.8000705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001ca0fb4$00cfaaa0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited disclosure > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> When the director assesses whether a player would >> have made a different call had he not been given >> misinformation (in L21B1(a) or L21B3), the >> current table position is compared to _____ >> >> 1. if the player had been given the correct information >> instead of the misinformation >> >> 2. if the player had been given the correct information >> in addition to the misinformation. >> > Good question. Grattan? > +=+ Grattan what? In a nutshell, I said in a response to Burn that the information of what an opponent *thought* a bid meant is extraneous. Here is the Burn comment and my response: (DALB) Hence, a North who does realise before the auction ends that he has misexplained would be well advised to keep quiet about it, because if he speaks up when the Laws say he should, his result will be 4H doubled going down, whereas if he does not, his result may be 4H undoubled going down. (GE) +=+ I am not clear, David, why you should say this. In my understanding (but see exception * below) the knowledge that E or W might use to double when North speaks up in timely fashion does not appear to be derived from the legal auction [Law 16A1(a)], nor from a withdrawn action [16A1(b) with 16D], nor from information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized [Law 16A1(c)]. In these circumstances the information from which the knowledge derives is extraneous, Law 16A3 applies (and Law 16A4 if such information is used). *The exception that I make is when the legal auction, inclusive of correct explanations in context, itself gives evidence of disjointed actions by NS. I referred to this in an earlier text. ............................................................................ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jul 28 22:27:58 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:27:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <4A6F1A21.8010205@skynet.be> References: <20090728134625.3F969990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A6F1A21.8010205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A6F5F4E.2030807@aol.com> (last sentence) Perhaps because you wrote "This is a very badly constructed example..." That is an absolute statement, not a subjective one. It differs from (example), "I think it might be better to construct another example that I feel would be better." I think we once went through this before. I personally recommend formulations such as "I disagree" to "you are mistaken". Ciao, JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > ton wrote: >> >> >> I fail to see the relevance. If 2H is explained as strong, would west not >> pass? Is this not a simple MI case? Why should West need the knowledge of >> the mistake to want to change his call to pass? >> And there is another point: do you need to know any of the cards to rule >> that the bid of 4H is based on the misexplanation that 2H was considered >> weak? >> This is a very badly constructed example, Sven. >> >> Herman. >> >> >> ton: >> >> You (Herman) would once more resent the remark I had in mind for you. I am >> not discussing this issue to upset you, though you make it almost impossible >> not to arrive there. >> > > I have absolutely no idea, Ton, as to why you would choose to attack me > on the basis of this post in reply to Sven. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 28 23:50:45 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:50:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <001001ca0fb4$00cfaaa0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> <4A6F19AC.8000705@skynet.be> <001001ca0fb4$00cfaaa0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A6F72B5.3080908@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: > > In a nutshell, I said in a response to Burn that the > information of what an opponent *thought* a bid meant > is extraneous. snipped > In my understanding (but see exception * below) the > knowledge that E or W might use to double when > North speaks up in timely fashion does not appear to > be derived from the legal auction [Law 16A1(a)], nor > from a withdrawn action [16A1(b) with 16D], nor > from information specified in any law or regulation to > be authorized [Law 16A1(c)]. In these circumstances > the information from which the knowledge derives is > extraneous, Law 16A3 applies (and Law 16A4 if > such information is used). L20F says that I may request an explanation of opps' auction. Seems to me to be an example of what L16A1c talks about. I may be overlooking something, but at the moment it seems to me that said law is the only one that authorizes information from explanations. If wrong information is unauthorized ( the law is silent on this point, one could argue that since it is not explicitly stated as authorized, it must be unauthorized), it puts its recipient - the non-offending side - under UI restrictions. L16C2 mentions the following remedies for extraneous information not stemming from one's partner: a) adjusting positions: obviously impossible. b) redealing the board: often impossible in the time of preduplicated boards, or, if chosen, often tantamount to giving an artificial adjusted score, since it will be impossible to compare the score with enough other score to get a non-artificial score, therefore - IMO - not in accordance with the expressed spirit of the laws. Only in very rare circumstances will you arrive at a board without artificial scores. c) allowing completion... adjusted score. This (as mentioned above) places the NOS under restrictions. The Probst cheat will have a field day. Just imagine someone having a close game raise of an invitational bid. He misexplains, then corrects himself in time. Practically no risk. d) award an artificial adjusted score. This choice is barred by L16C3. Since a and b are impossible/unlikely/, this will leave us with c) most of the time. This leads us to the reverse situation of c): the NOS, having received extraneous information (if this is what the misexplanation is) calls the TD, telling him:"Sir, I have received extraneous information through no fault of my own, I feel that my choices as per L16 are restricted as a result of this, I am non-offending, what shall I do?" Well, what shall he do? Say a player contemplates a close double of an opposing game contract. Maybe even _very_ close. It so happens that he received a wrong explanation, corrected in time. Now he has extraneous information ( if we define wrong explanations as such, the lawbook may be read either way). Say he doubles. Now the TD should take the double away, because it may be suggested... LA.... Say he does not double, because he knows his L16 obligations. What remedies does he have? None, it seems to me, if we follow your argument to its end. Last exit L12A1/2. Let me summarize: If NOS got wrong (albeit corrected) information, they are restricted by L16, if this wrong information is extraneous. Since this is so, normal play of the board may well be impossible. Of course, in many cases there will be no problem, as L21B1a kicks in, and the player has to be influenced by the wrong information, not the system forget or whatever the cause for the MI was. But whenever a player has some alternative action (which he does not take because of L16), what action is left to the director except resorting to L12A1 or 2, that player being non-offending? In the examples given elsewhere a player had a close double, having about 2,5 to 3 tricks in his hand, and seeing a bad split or something. Not doubling is a LA, though, as declarer may overcome such adversities. It may be a clear double at MP or IMPs, still pass is a LA. So if a knowledgable player passes, he may get something back from the director, but if he (maybe unwisely) doubles, the director may well take it away, since he is an infractor himself now ( in the TDs eyes). That may be a good advertisement to read the rules, but it is far removed from reality. There is no game as widespread as Bridge where players are as ignorant of the rules. This is an absolutely impossible situation to put players in, IMO. Good directors can handle it, no doubt, but players? On the other hand, if we just let L21B1a do its work, where's the problem? If the change of call was not influenced by the MI the TD rolls it back. Case closed. If it is extraneous, therefore unauthorized, the NOS would have to _defend_ on the basis of the corrected information alone, too, letting a couple of contracts through (ever tried to "misdefend" on purpose?), again leading to L12A1 or 2. This is not what the lawbook says it is for. Grattan, this is all very well with top TDs (and even there...), but in reality at least 95% of TDs in tournaments going on this very second would have no idea what we are discussing here, and the scores obtained or given by the TD would be as close to random as any mathematician could ever wish for. If we go the "extraneous" route we will get a lot of adjusted or artificially adjusted scores with good TDs, and a lot of more or less random scores with the remaining TDs. This is not what Bridge is about. If we go the "L21" route, we get a lot more table scores. If the LC thinks that this is not what the law says, it is what the laws should say next time around, IMO. Best regards Matthias > *The exception that I make is when the legal auction, > inclusive of correct explanations in context, itself gives > evidence of disjointed actions by NS. I referred to > this in an earlier text. > ............................................................................ > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 29 01:32:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:32:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> <4A6F19AC.8000705@skynet.be><001001ca0fb4$00cfaaa0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6F72B5.3080908@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000c01ca0fdb$c0e83ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure > L20F says that I may request an explanation of opps' auction. Seems to me to be an example of what L16A1c talks about. I may be overlooking something, but at the moment it seems to me that said law is the only one that authorizes information from explanations. > If wrong information is unauthorized ( the law is silent on this point, one could argue that since it is not explicitly stated as authorized, it must be unauthorized), it puts its recipient - the non-offending side - under UI restrictions. < +=+ I do not believe it is a legal procedure to give incorrect information and opponents' explanations are used in the belief they are correct. When misinformation is exposed the information given illegally is supplanted by the correct information. It appears to me that the legal procedure is the requirement to provide correct information and when the misexplanation is revealed to have been given, unlawfully, it may no longer be used. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 29 09:08:56 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:08:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <000c01ca0fdb$c0e83ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090729070917.CC5367F24010@relay1.webreus.nl> +=+ I do not believe it is a legal procedure to give incorrect information and opponents' explanations are used in the belief they are correct. When misinformation is exposed the information given illegally is supplanted by the correct information. It appears to me that the legal procedure is the requirement to provide correct information and when the misexplanation is revealed to have been given, unlawfully, it may no longer be used. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: At last a very clear (and brave) statement which as far as I can estimate is turning bridge on its head (don't know whether this expression means something in English). I don't think it will survive a serious discussion but let us see in a month or so. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 29 09:52:10 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:52:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <000c01ca0fdb$c0e83ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> <4A6F19AC.8000705@skynet.be><001001ca0fb4$00cfaaa0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6F72B5.3080908@t-online.de> <000c01ca0fdb$c0e83ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A6FFFAA.8070100@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: > > +=+ I do not believe it is a legal procedure to give > incorrect information and opponents' explanations > are used in the belief they are correct. When > misinformation is exposed the information given > illegally is supplanted by the correct information. > It appears to me that the legal procedure is the > requirement to provide correct information and > when the misexplanation is revealed to have been > given, unlawfully, it may no longer be used. . > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Assume an auction where declarer misexplained dummy's point count range, later corrected. I now have information (unauthorized, according to you) that declarer bid the final contract in the belief that his partner holds X, while in reality he holds Y. If we follow what you say above I now have to misdefend on purpose, as I am not allowed to use that knowledge. Not only am I disallowed from using this information, in fact I have to avoid carefully any alternative line of play that may have been suggested, else I will have infracted L16. If I do not manage this my score will be adjusted as per L16A4, since I am now the offender. If I do manage 99,9% of directors will smile at me, make some gesture indicating that my brains are addled, and admonish me not to waste time again, to boot. If a miracle happens I will get a L12A1 or 2 ruling.... (This is way above the head of nearly every director one meets outside a national or international championship). If an opponent shows signs of anxiety, I may use that (at my own risk, of course), L73D1 says so. But if he now opens his mouth, explains partner's bid, bids something, _then_ corrects himself, I am no longer allowed to use that? In fact I, who did nothing wrong except showing up in the first place, am now under L16 restrictions, and may end up as the offending side? Now the best I can hope for is for the TD to give me the score I could well have achieved on my own... The only saving grace is that the number of people who might call the director on me for that is strictly limited... All the while we could let L21B1a do its work, and let people do what players should do: play Bridge, draw conclusions, try to find out what card to play next, instead of trying to find which card _not_ to play in order not to infract L16. Best regards Matthias From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 29 10:09:49 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:09:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A6FFFAA.8070100@t-online.de> References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> <4A6F19AC.8000705@skynet.be><001001ca0fb4$00cfaaa0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6F72B5.3080908@t-online.de> <000c01ca0fdb$c0e83ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6FFFAA.8070100@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A7003CD.4010502@aol.com> Ich, zumindest, stimme Dir zu. Sehen wir uns in Loiben oder Pula? Ciao, JE Matthias Berghaus schrieb: > Grattan schrieb: >> +=+ I do not believe it is a legal procedure to give >> incorrect information and opponents' explanations >> are used in the belief they are correct. When >> misinformation is exposed the information given >> illegally is supplanted by the correct information. >> It appears to me that the legal procedure is the >> requirement to provide correct information and >> when the misexplanation is revealed to have been >> given, unlawfully, it may no longer be used. . >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Assume an auction where declarer misexplained dummy's point count range, > later corrected. I now have information (unauthorized, according to you) > that declarer bid the final contract in the belief that his partner > holds X, while in reality he holds Y. > If we follow what you say above I now have to misdefend on purpose, as I > am not allowed to use that knowledge. Not only am I disallowed from > using this information, in fact I have to avoid carefully any > alternative line of play that may have been suggested, else I will have > infracted L16. If I do not manage this my score will be adjusted as per > L16A4, since I am now the offender. If I do manage 99,9% of directors > will smile at me, make some gesture indicating that my brains are > addled, and admonish me not to waste time again, to boot. If a miracle > happens I will get a L12A1 or 2 ruling.... (This is way above the head > of nearly every director one meets outside a national or international > championship). > > > If an opponent shows signs of anxiety, I may use that (at my own risk, > of course), L73D1 says so. But if he now opens his mouth, explains > partner's bid, bids something, _then_ corrects himself, I am no longer > allowed to use that? In fact I, who did nothing wrong except showing up > in the first place, am now under L16 restrictions, and may end up as the > offending side? Now the best I can hope for is for the TD to give me the > score I could well have achieved on my own... > The only saving grace is that the number of people who might call the > director on me for that is strictly limited... > > All the while we could let L21B1a do its work, and let people do what > players should do: play Bridge, draw conclusions, try to find out what > card to play next, instead of trying to find which card _not_ to play in > order not to infract L16. > > Best regards > Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 29 10:13:34 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:13:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A7003CD.4010502@aol.com> References: <20090727181906.0E94D990C1DE@relay2.webreus.nl> <002d01ca0f43$fc399ca0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A6EAA06.40606@skynet.be> <4A6F19AC.8000705@skynet.be><001001ca0fb4$00cfaaa0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6F72B5.3080908@t-online.de> <000c01ca0fdb$c0e83ba0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A6FFFAA.8070100@t-online.de> <4A7003CD.4010502@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A7004AE.5000001@aol.com> Pardon, my computer incapability is uncontrollable. I intended to send the message (in German) privately, not through blml. JE Jeff Easterson schrieb: > Ich, zumindest, stimme Dir zu. > Sehen wir uns in Loiben oder Pula? Ciao, JE > > Matthias Berghaus schrieb: >> Grattan schrieb: >>> +=+ I do not believe it is a legal procedure to give >>> incorrect information and opponents' explanations >>> are used in the belief they are correct. When >>> misinformation is exposed the information given >>> illegally is supplanted by the correct information. >>> It appears to me that the legal procedure is the >>> requirement to provide correct information and >>> when the misexplanation is revealed to have been >>> given, unlawfully, it may no longer be used. . >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> Assume an auction where declarer misexplained dummy's point count range, >> later corrected. I now have information (unauthorized, according to you) >> that declarer bid the final contract in the belief that his partner >> holds X, while in reality he holds Y. >> If we follow what you say above I now have to misdefend on purpose, as I >> am not allowed to use that knowledge. Not only am I disallowed from >> using this information, in fact I have to avoid carefully any >> alternative line of play that may have been suggested, else I will have >> infracted L16. If I do not manage this my score will be adjusted as per >> L16A4, since I am now the offender. If I do manage 99,9% of directors >> will smile at me, make some gesture indicating that my brains are >> addled, and admonish me not to waste time again, to boot. If a miracle >> happens I will get a L12A1 or 2 ruling.... (This is way above the head >> of nearly every director one meets outside a national or international >> championship). >> >> >> If an opponent shows signs of anxiety, I may use that (at my own risk, >> of course), L73D1 says so. But if he now opens his mouth, explains >> partner's bid, bids something, _then_ corrects himself, I am no longer >> allowed to use that? In fact I, who did nothing wrong except showing up >> in the first place, am now under L16 restrictions, and may end up as the >> offending side? Now the best I can hope for is for the TD to give me the >> score I could well have achieved on my own... >> The only saving grace is that the number of people who might call the >> director on me for that is strictly limited... >> >> All the while we could let L21B1a do its work, and let people do what >> players should do: play Bridge, draw conclusions, try to find out what >> card to play next, instead of trying to find which card _not_ to play in >> order not to infract L16. >> >> Best regards >> Matthias >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Jul 29 10:26:49 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:26:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A7004AE.5000001@aol.com> Message-ID: <20090729082721.903907F24036@relay1.webreus.nl> ton: Why privately, don't you dare to admit that you support me also? Pardon, my computer incapability is uncontrollable. I intended to send the message (in German) privately, not through blml. JE Jeff Easterson schrieb: > Ich, zumindest, stimme Dir zu. > Sehen wir uns in Loiben oder Pula? Ciao, JE > > Matthias Berghaus schrieb: >> Grattan schrieb: >>> +=+ I do not believe it is a legal procedure to give >>> incorrect information and opponents' explanations are used in the >>> belief they are correct. When misinformation is exposed the >>> information given illegally is supplanted by the correct >>> information. >>> It appears to me that the legal procedure is the requirement to >>> provide correct information and when the misexplanation is revealed >>> to have been given, unlawfully, it may no longer be used. . >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> Assume an auction where declarer misexplained dummy's point count >> range, later corrected. I now have information (unauthorized, >> according to you) that declarer bid the final contract in the belief >> that his partner holds X, while in reality he holds Y. >> If we follow what you say above I now have to misdefend on purpose, >> as I am not allowed to use that knowledge. Not only am I disallowed >> from using this information, in fact I have to avoid carefully any >> alternative line of play that may have been suggested, else I will >> have infracted L16. If I do not manage this my score will be adjusted >> as per L16A4, since I am now the offender. If I do manage 99,9% of >> directors will smile at me, make some gesture indicating that my >> brains are addled, and admonish me not to waste time again, to boot. >> If a miracle happens I will get a L12A1 or 2 ruling.... (This is way >> above the head of nearly every director one meets outside a national >> or international championship). >> >> >> If an opponent shows signs of anxiety, I may use that (at my own >> risk, of course), L73D1 says so. But if he now opens his mouth, >> explains partner's bid, bids something, _then_ corrects himself, I am >> no longer allowed to use that? In fact I, who did nothing wrong >> except showing up in the first place, am now under L16 restrictions, >> and may end up as the offending side? Now the best I can hope for is >> for the TD to give me the score I could well have achieved on my own... >> The only saving grace is that the number of people who might call the >> director on me for that is strictly limited... >> >> All the while we could let L21B1a do its work, and let people do what >> players should do: play Bridge, draw conclusions, try to find out >> what card to play next, instead of trying to find which card _not_ to >> play in order not to infract L16. >> >> Best regards >> Matthias >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 29 10:51:04 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:51:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090729082721.903907F24036@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <20090729085121.23DC8990C070@relay2.webreus.nl> ton: My analysis about this topic for what it is worth. Grattan has been convinced that consistency is lost following the approach were assigning an adjusted score in case of MI this MI may not be taken into account. This is an enormous step in the right direction. So we need to fix it. The only mistake made is that he starts at the wrong end. This is easy to restore since the right end is very close by. >> Grattan schrieb: >>> +=+ I do not believe it is a legal procedure to give >>> incorrect information and opponents' explanations are used in the >>> belief they are correct. When misinformation is exposed the >>> information given illegally is supplanted by the correct >>> information. >>> It appears to me that the legal procedure is the requirement to >>> provide correct information and when the misexplanation is revealed >>> to have been given, unlawfully, it may no longer be used. . >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> Assume an auction where declarer misexplained dummy's point count >> range, later corrected. I now have information (unauthorized, >> according to you) that declarer bid the final contract in the belief >> that his partner holds X, while in reality he holds Y. >> If we follow what you say above I now have to misdefend on purpose, >> as I am not allowed to use that knowledge. Not only am I disallowed >> from using this information, in fact I have to avoid carefully any >> alternative line of play that may have been suggested, else I will >> have infracted L16. If I do not manage this my score will be adjusted >> as per L16A4, since I am now the offender. If I do manage 99,9% of >> directors will smile at me, make some gesture indicating that my >> brains are addled, and admonish me not to waste time again, to boot. >> If a miracle happens I will get a L12A1 or 2 ruling.... (This is way >> above the head of nearly every director one meets outside a national >> or international championship). >> >> >> If an opponent shows signs of anxiety, I may use that (at my own >> risk, of course), L73D1 says so. But if he now opens his mouth, >> explains partner's bid, bids something, _then_ corrects himself, I am >> no longer allowed to use that? In fact I, who did nothing wrong >> except showing up in the first place, am now under L16 restrictions, >> and may end up as the offending side? Now the best I can hope for is >> for the TD to give me the score I could well have achieved on my own... >> The only saving grace is that the number of people who might call the >> director on me for that is strictly limited... >> >> All the while we could let L21B1a do its work, and let people do what >> players should do: play Bridge, draw conclusions, try to find out >> what card to play next, instead of trying to find which card _not_ to >> play in order not to infract L16. >> >> Best regards >> Matthias >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 29 11:30:03 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:30:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090729070917.CC5367F24010@relay1.webreus.nl> References: <20090729070917.CC5367F24010@relay1.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A70169B.2000305@skynet.be> ton wrote: > > > +=+ I do not believe it is a legal procedure to give > incorrect information and opponents' explanations > are used in the belief they are correct. When > misinformation is exposed the information given > illegally is supplanted by the correct information. > It appears to me that the legal procedure is the > requirement to provide correct information and > when the misexplanation is revealed to have been > given, unlawfully, it may no longer be used. . > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > ton: > > At last a very clear (and brave) statement which as far as I can estimate is > turning bridge on its head (don't know whether this expression means > something in English). > No it's not. It's the way I have interpreted the bridge laws forever, and that's not on its head. It may be that this was not how you interpreted it, but then, if we've been playing bridge for such a long time, this must be a marginal issue, musn't it? > I don't think it will survive a serious discussion but let us see in a month > or so. > > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 29 11:36:56 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:36:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <20090729085121.23DC8990C070@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090729085121.23DC8990C070@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A701838.10002@skynet.be> ton wrote: > ton: > > My analysis about this topic for what it is worth. > > Grattan has been convinced that consistency is lost following the approach > were > assigning an adjusted score in case of MI this MI may not be taken into > account. > > This is an enormous step in the right direction. > So we need to fix it. The only mistake made is that he starts at the wrong > end. > This is easy to restore since the right end is very close by. > > Sorry Ton, the right end (according to you) is very far away. You start by allowing people to use the (non-entitled, according to Grattan and me) knowledge of a misunderstanding. Next you will make that knowledge not only authorized, but also entitled. This will create new inconsistencies, and you will end making the players intentions entitled information to opponents. Then you will not be able to distinguish between misunderstandings and deliberate misbids, and psyches will become impossible. A very far journey, if I might say so. On the other hand, the direction Grattan is travelling is towards eliminating a few inconsistencies, none of which have caused us any trouble in the recent (or distant) past. Even the end product that I envisage (and which might well go a little further than Grattan) brings us to a game of bridge which in 99.9% of tournaments will not see any change. Please think before you act! Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 29 11:38:34 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:38:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] revealing a misunderstanding - part two In-Reply-To: <4A6F5F4E.2030807@aol.com> References: <20090728134625.3F969990C25C@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A6F1A21.8010205@skynet.be> <4A6F5F4E.2030807@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A70189A.9040002@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > (last sentence) Perhaps because you wrote "This is a very badly > constructed example..." That is an absolute statement, not a subjective > one. It differs from (example), "I think it might be better to > construct another example that I feel would be better." I think we once > went through this before. I personally recommend formulations such as > "I disagree" to "you are mistaken". Ciao, JE > Yes Jeff, but after I have given five reasons why the example is badly constructed, I don't think I need to add a "I believe" to the logical conclusion of a post. And, in answer to a question not directed at myself: Pula. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 29 11:38:57 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:38:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A70169B.2000305@skynet.be> References: <20090729070917.CC5367F24010@relay1.webreus.nl> <4A70169B.2000305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A7018B1.6080502@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > from Gratttan : > >> >> >> +=+ I do not believe it is a legal procedure to give >> incorrect information and opponents' explanations >> are used in the belief they are correct. When >> misinformation is exposed the information given >> illegally is supplanted by the correct information. >> It appears to me that the legal procedure is the >> requirement to provide correct information and >> when the misexplanation is revealed to have been >> given, unlawfully, it may no longer be used. . >> AG : that's not the precise issue. The question isn't "are we allowed to use the wrong information ?" - it will not, by definition, be usable. The question is "are we allowed to know that wrong information was given ?" Similar case : when a player discovers that he still has a plum left and corrects his revoke, it's highly probable that he hasn't got more than one plum left (it's uncommon to have two hidden cards). Are we allowed to know that ? Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 29 11:42:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:42:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: <20090729085121.23DC8990C070@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <001201ca1030$eacbcd60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure > ton: > > My analysis about this topic for what it is worth. > > Grattan has been convinced that consistency is lost following > the approach were assigning an adjusted score in case of MI > this MI may not be taken into account. > > This is an enormous step in the right direction. > So we need to fix it. The only mistake made is that he starts > at the wrong end. This is easy to restore since the right end > is very close by. > +=+ I start with the Director. When an explanation is changed the law first requires him to judge whether an opponent's call has been based upon the false explanation or not.and, having decided that, to carry his decision through to either rolling or not rolling back the auction, and where it is too late for this in his ruling on score adjustment. In situations where the Director judges that a call has not been based upon the false information I consider it is unjust to allow the opponent to gain the advantage of something to which he has no right by the device of claiming that knowledge of his opponents' confusion is AI to him. If with only correct explanations his call would have been the same he should not be allowed access to information deriving from the false explanation, unlawfully given to him, that has been substituted and without which he cannot gain that advantage and which information is, I believe, UI for him. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 29 12:33:04 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:33:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: <20090729070917.CC5367F24010@relay1.webreus.nl><4A70169B.2000305@skynet.be> <4A7018B1.6080502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003d01ca1038$a697a710$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure AG : that's not the precise issue. The question isn't "are we allowed to use the wrong information ?" - it will not, by definition, be usable. The question is "are we allowed to know that wrong information was given ?" < +=+ I do not believe that knowledge the wrong information was given is usable without knowing what that information was. Inevitably the man who wants to take back his pass and double, for example, uses the information given illegally as the basis, or part of the basis, of his change of call. He bases his action not upon knowing that there was a wrong explanation but on knowing what that wrong information was. The Director is required to make his judgement on what would have happened if only correct explanations had been given with all infractive explanations eliminated. It is the epitome of consistency that the carry-through of the law shall maintain the same conditions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 29 12:58:58 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:58:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <003d01ca1038$a697a710$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090729070917.CC5367F24010@relay1.webreus.nl><4A70169B.2000305@skynet.be> <4A7018B1.6080502@ulb.ac.be> <003d01ca1038$a697a710$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A702B72.8080509@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just, > But four times he who gets his blow in fust." > [Henry Wheeler Shaw]. > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:38 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure > > > > AG : that's not the precise issue. The question isn't "are > we allowed to use the wrong information ?" - it will not, > by definition, be usable. The question is "are we allowed > to know that wrong information was given ?" > < > +=+ I do not believe that knowledge the wrong information > was given is usable without knowing what that information > was. Inevitably the man who wants to take back his pass > and double, for example, uses the information given illegally > as the basis, or part of the basis, of his change of call. He > bases his action not upon knowing that there was a wrong > explanation but on knowing what that wrong information > was. > AG : in the case of the visible misunderstanding, you'll be right 95% of the time. But not in the general case. For example : often, the simple mention of "I should have alerted" is enough to make to player change his pass to a lead-directing double. Alos, "I shouildn't have alerted" will occasionally help the player change his mind, without even asking what was the (wrongly) supposed meaning. This is especially true of players who find it better not to ask about alerted bids. And in some cases, it isn't even the knowledge of the misunderstanding, but the mere impossibility of the bidding that prompts the change. 1NT pass 3C pass 6C pass pass pass Now it appears that 3C meant "both minors, weak". You want to double, because they won't be able to make 6C, and it is irrelevant to know what meaning opener momentarily assigned to 3C, or the fact that .there indeed was a misunderstanding. In those case, "had there not been a failure to alert", I would have doubled, whence I'm allowed to double 6C. Best regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 29 14:20:41 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:20:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <001201ca1030$eacbcd60$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090729085121.23DC8990C070@relay2.webreus.nl> <001201ca1030$eacbcd60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A703E99.1020900@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: > +=+ I start with the Director. When an explanation > is changed the law first requires him to judge whether an > opponent's call has been based upon the false explanation > or not.and, having decided that, to carry his decision through > to either rolling or not rolling back the auction, and where it > is too late for this in his ruling on score adjustment. Well, L21B1a says so, so I have no quarrel with that. > In situations where the Director judges that a call has > not been based upon the false information I consider it is > unjust to allow the opponent to gain the advantage of > something to which he has no right by the device of claiming > that knowledge of his opponents' confusion is AI to him. If > with only correct explanations his call would have been the > same he should not be allowed access to information > deriving from the false explanation, unlawfully given to him, > that has been substituted and without which he cannot gain > that advantage and which information is, I believe, UI for him. I have not much quarrel with that, either, except the UI part. UI doesn`t go away, it puts the recipient (in this case the innocent side) under L16 restrictions. So an action that most players would classify as reasonable, or even clear-cut, gets lost if another one is an LA, and the information from the false explanation suggest the successful action over the unsuccessful. In order for the TD to allow a change of call a player must have been influenced by the misinformation. The knowledge of opps' confusion is not enough to allow a change of call. See L21. But if I am under UI restrictions, to boot, I may not make a double (for example, probably the most obvious case where one might want to change the call) which I consider to be odds-on _on the information from the correction alone_! Example: 1H - 3H - 4H. No alerts. If responder holds an invitational hand, some of my values (sitting behind opener) will be under the gun, so a double looks odds-against. Now I receive the correction: 3H is preemptive, weaker than a single raise, let alone an invitational raise. Now my values look good. Opener may have substantial extras, just short of a slam try opposite an invitation, partner still is completely broke, some HCP just shifted from my left to my right, so the field may well play in this contract all over the room, and, who knows, the contract may be cold due to some of my tricks evaporating because of distributional features, but I should gain by doubling in the long run, just looking at the corrected information, and taking the auction at face value: Responder is weak, opener wants to play in game regardless. My values are well placed behid the strong hand. Now these folks here managed to avoid a double, as I am under UI restrictions. Three possible outcomes: a) the contract makes. Lucky me, if I avoided the double, less lucky if I did not; b) I double, the contract goes down. Opps complain, the TD says "Sorry, Sir, I could understand the double without the earlier MI, but since you were under UI restrictions I have to remove the double, pass was an LA"; c) I do not double, contract goes down, I will be accused of taking a double shot if I want my double. A fine mess. There may be b1) opps complain, but TD lets the score stand, but only if my action was without LA. I will lose all cases where I want to chance a double, but pass is an LA (and the double succeeds, of course). Yet I did nothing wrong, did I? On the other hand, if I manage to convince the TD that I have my change of call, he lets me double or whatever, and later checks whether he agrees with me, taking away my score if he thinks I used the knowledge of confusion, not the corrected information, where is the problem? It is a pure L21 case, no one is under UI restrictions (which, as I mentioned a couple of times before, and do so again, carry over into the play phase, as UI does not simply go away, even if it will matter only occasionally), and I will end up holding the short straw if the contract makes, or the director decides not to accept my reasons for the change of call, in which case I deserve it. To summarize my position: L21 allows the TD to role back any action which is based on opps' confusion, _and lets me play Bridge_. If I goof, shame on me, but I can put my money (or matchpoints, or IMPs, or whatever) on the line, and live with the results. L16 puts the non-offenders under UI restrictions, which simply cannot be right. It can't be sold to Bridge players. Can you imagine the faces if the TD says: "Sorry, Sir, you may not do such-and-such, because your opponent infracted the law"? Best regards Matthias P.S. If this doesn't work I give up. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 29 14:25:15 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:25:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? Message-ID: <000001ca1047$a0a2d9b0$e1e88d10$@no> The ongoing discussion makes me more and more confused on one vital question: Except when the situation is the consequence of an irregularity committed by me or my partner: Is there any situation where information derived from opponents' action can be unauthorized for me and/or my partner? Law 16D1 explicitly states that: "For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents'". This Law says "action" and not "call or play" so I see no reason why not for instance "explanation" should also be an "action" for the purpose of this law? If my understanding is correct then the information that there apparently has been a misunderstanding between my opponents including the nature of this misunderstanding is fully authorized to me and my partner both before and after the misinformation in case has been corrected (subject of course to Law 21A in case we misunderstand the misinformation). Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 29 14:25:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:25:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited disclosure References: <20090729070917.CC5367F24010@relay1.webreus.nl><4A70169B.2000305@skynet.be> <4A7018B1.6080502@ulb.ac.be><003d01ca1038$a697a710$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A702B72.8080509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000a01ca1047$ba291f20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just, > But four times he who gets his blow in fust." > [Henry Wheeler Shaw]. > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:38 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited disclosure > And in some cases, it isn't even the knowledge of the misunderstanding, but the mere impossibility of the bidding that prompts the change. 1NT pass 3C pass 6C pass pass pass Now it appears that 3C meant "both minors, weak". You want to double, because they won't be able to make 6C, and it is irrelevant to know what meaning opener momentarily assigned to 3C, or the fact that .there indeed was a misunderstanding. In those case, "had there not been a failure to alert", I would have doubled, whence I'm allowed to double 6C. +=+ I quote: < *The exception that I make is when the legal auction, inclusive of correct explanations in context, itself gives evidence of disjointed actions by NS. I referred to this in an earlier text. > Thank you for the excellent example. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 29 14:29:05 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:29:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <4A703E99.1020900@t-online.de> References: <20090729085121.23DC8990C070@relay2.webreus.nl> <001201ca1030$eacbcd60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A703E99.1020900@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000101ca1048$29e391b0$7daab510$@no> On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus .............. > L16 puts the non-offenders under UI restrictions, which simply cannot be right. It > can't be sold to Bridge players. Can you imagine the faces if the TD says: "Sorry, > Sir, you may not do such-and-such, because your opponent infracted the law"? Only if such-and-such is an irregularity in itself! At least that is the only principle I can live with. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 29 15:03:50 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:03:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000001ca1047$a0a2d9b0$e1e88d10$@no> References: <000001ca1047$a0a2d9b0$e1e88d10$@no> Message-ID: <4A7048B6.90804@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > The ongoing discussion makes me more and more confused on one vital > question: > > Except when the situation is the consequence of an irregularity committed by > me or my partner: > > Is there any situation where information derived from opponents' action can > be unauthorized for me and/or my partner? > > Law 16D1 explicitly states that: "For a non-offending side, all information > arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own > or its opponents'". > > This Law says "action" and not "call or play" so I see no reason why not for > instance "explanation" should also be an "action" for the purpose of this > law? > AG : I think that the introduction of part D says "a call or play may be withdrawn", or something to that effect, so the rest of the law should refer only to calls and plays. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 29 15:16:19 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:16:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure In-Reply-To: <000101ca1048$29e391b0$7daab510$@no> References: <20090729085121.23DC8990C070@relay2.webreus.nl> <001201ca1030$eacbcd60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A703E99.1020900@t-online.de> <000101ca1048$29e391b0$7daab510$@no> Message-ID: <4A704BA3.8090702@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus > .............. > >> L16 puts the non-offenders under UI restrictions, which simply cannot be >> > right. It > >> can't be sold to Bridge players. Can you imagine the faces if the TD says: >> > "Sorry, > >> Sir, you may not do such-and-such, because your opponent infracted the >> > law"? > (soccer) Sir, you may not continue playing after I've whistled to signal a foul by the opposing team. Going on could even net you a booking. (cricket) Sir, that's a wide, not a run, so please forget about celebrating your century. You didn't reach it yet. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 29 15:13:13 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:13:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure References: <20090729070917.CC5367F24010@relay1.webreus.nl><4A70169B.2000305@skynet.be> <4A7018B1.6080502@ulb.ac.be><003d01ca1038$a697a710$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A702B72.8080509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001d01ca104f$0d871da0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:38 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] The principle of limited discosure > > > > AG : that's not the precise issue. The question isn't "are > we allowed to use the wrong information ?" - it will not, > by definition, be usable. The question is "are we allowed > to know that wrong information was given ?" > < > +=+ I do not believe that knowledge the wrong information > was given is usable without knowing what that information > was. Inevitably the man who wants to take back his pass > and double, for example, uses the information given illegally > as the basis, or part of the basis, of his change of call. He > bases his action not upon knowing that there was a wrong > explanation but on knowing what that wrong information > was. > AG : in the case of the visible misunderstanding, you'll be right 95% of the time. But not in the general case. For example : often, the simple mention of "I should have alerted" is enough to make to player change his pass to a lead-directing double. Alos, "I shouildn't have alerted" will occasionally help the player change his mind, without even asking what was the (wrongly) supposed meaning. This is especially true of players who find it better not to ask about alerted bids. +=+ In the foregoing cases are you saying the Director would not have judged that the player would make a different call given only correct explanations? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 29 15:18:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:18:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? References: <000001ca1047$a0a2d9b0$e1e88d10$@no> Message-ID: <001e01ca104f$0dafb440$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:25 PM Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? > The ongoing discussion makes me more and more confused on one vital > question: > > Except when the situation is the consequence of an irregularity committed > by > me or my partner: > > Is there any situation where information derived from opponents' action > can > be unauthorized for me and/or my partner? > > Law 16D1 explicitly states that: "For a non-offending side, all > information > arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its > own > or its opponents'". > > This Law says "action" and not "call or play" so I see no reason why not > for > instance "explanation" should also be an "action" for the purpose of this > law? > > If my understanding is correct then the information that there apparently > has been a misunderstanding between my opponents including the nature of > this misunderstanding is fully authorized to me and my partner both before > and after the misinformation in case has been corrected (subject of course > to Law 21A in case we misunderstand the misinformation). > +=+ Law 16D defines an 'action' as 'a call or play', both in the heading and significantly, in the preamble.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 29 15:45:43 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:45:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000001ca1047$a0a2d9b0$e1e88d10$@no> Message-ID: <20090729134553.ACFC1990C168@relay2.webreus.nl> ton: Sven you are 100+ % right, this is not only what the laws tell us, we have even thought about it. And one thing more: it is a fundament on which the laws are built. So don't feel confused, see all movements you don't understand as poor trials to avoid admitting that some approaches might be wrong. (the last words are Grattanian language) -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: woensdag 29 juli 2009 14:25 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? The ongoing discussion makes me more and more confused on one vital question: Except when the situation is the consequence of an irregularity committed by me or my partner: Is there any situation where information derived from opponents' action can be unauthorized for me and/or my partner? Law 16D1 explicitly states that: "For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents'". This Law says "action" and not "call or play" so I see no reason why not for instance "explanation" should also be an "action" for the purpose of this law? If my understanding is correct then the information that there apparently has been a misunderstanding between my opponents including the nature of this misunderstanding is fully authorized to me and my partner both before and after the misinformation in case has been corrected (subject of course to Law 21A in case we misunderstand the misinformation). Regards Sven _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 29 15:58:05 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:58:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <001e01ca104f$0dafb440$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl> > If my understanding is correct then the information that there apparently > has been a misunderstanding between my opponents including the nature of > this misunderstanding is fully authorized to me and my partner both before > and after the misinformation in case has been corrected (subject of course > to Law 21A in case we misunderstand the misinformation). > +=+ Law 16D defines an 'action' as 'a call or play', both in the heading and significantly, in the preamble.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: I am not sure this has anything to do with the issue we are discussing. But 16D talks about 'all information arising from a withdrawn action...' Which includes the explanation given about the meaning of such call (right or wrong). Anybody objecting? From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 29 16:25:34 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:25:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <001e01ca104f$0dafb440$0302a8c0@Mildred> <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <000201ca1058$6f751130$4e5f3390$@no> On Behalf Of ton > > If my understanding is correct then the information that there > > apparently has been a misunderstanding between my opponents including > > the nature of this misunderstanding is fully authorized to me and my > > partner both before and after the misinformation in case has been > > corrected (subject of course to Law 21A in case we misunderstand the > misinformation). > > > > +=+ Law 16D defines an 'action' as 'a call or play', both in the > heading and significantly, in the preamble.. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > ton: > > I am not sure this has anything to do with the issue we are discussing. > But 16D talks about 'all information arising from a withdrawn action...' > Which includes the explanation given about the meaning of such call (right > or wrong). Anybody objecting? Thanks for all replies. I assume we have complete agreement that all information arising from opponents' explanations is authorized for me and my partner so long as they have not announced any existence of error in such explanations. I reluctantly accept (but I don't like it) that Law 16D can be understood to limit "action" to calls and plays, but then I have a follow-up question: Exactly what law (or laws) makes (already authorized) information arising from opponents' explanations unauthorized for me and my partner once they announce that their explanation was incorrect? Regards Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 29 16:59:06 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:59:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000201ca1058$6f751130$4e5f3390$@no> Message-ID: <20090729145910.AC856990C314@relay2.webreus.nl> Exactly what law (or laws) makes (already authorized) information arising from opponents' explanations unauthorized for me and my partner once they announce that their explanation was incorrect? Regards Sven ton: There are no such laws, but Grattan is trying to invent one. I just, in my previous message, showed that L 16D makes it authorized without limitation. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 29 22:50:58 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:50:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000201ca1058$6f751130$4e5f3390$@no> References: <001e01ca104f$0dafb440$0302a8c0@Mildred> <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl> <000201ca1058$6f751130$4e5f3390$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:25:34 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of ton > >> > If my understanding is correct then the information that there >> > apparently has been a misunderstanding between my opponents including >> > the nature of this misunderstanding is fully authorized to me and my >> > partner both before and after the misinformation in case has been >> > corrected (subject of course to Law 21A in case we misunderstand the >> misinformation). >> > >> >> +=+ Law 16D defines an 'action' as 'a call or play', both in the >> heading and significantly, in the preamble.. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> ton: >> >> I am not sure this has anything to do with the issue we are discussing. >> But 16D talks about 'all information arising from a withdrawn action...' >> Which includes the explanation given about the meaning of such call >> (right >> or wrong). Anybody objecting? > > Thanks for all replies. > > I assume we have complete agreement that all information arising from > opponents' explanations is authorized for me and my partner so long as > they > have not announced any existence of error in such explanations. > > I reluctantly accept (but I don't like it) that Law 16D can be > understood to > limit "action" to calls and plays, but then I have a follow-up question: > > Exactly what law (or laws) makes (already authorized) information arising > from opponents' explanations unauthorized for me and my partner once they > announce that their explanation was incorrect? I believe Grattan is trying to claim that the incorrect explanation was always UI. (AFAIK, he is exploiting an error in the laws -- it got left out that most/all of the things the opps do should be AI -- and he is ignoring the fact that the laws mention "replies" as being proper procedure.) The real issue, IMO, is the application of L21B1(a) and L21B3. For example, to calculate the damage from the misinformation, you compare the achieved table result to what might have happened had their not been misinformation. What exactly happens in this hypothetical world without misinformation? Is the misinformation replaced with the correct information, or is the correct informatin added to the misinformation? From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jul 30 00:07:43 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:07:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <20090729145910.AC856990C314@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <000201ca1058$6f751130$4e5f3390$@no> <20090729145910.AC856990C314@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <000c01ca1098$ff58bf00$fe0a3d00$@com> [SP] Exactly what law (or laws) makes (already authorized) information arising from opponents' explanations unauthorized for me and my partner once they announce that their explanation was incorrect? [TK] There are no such laws, but Grattan is trying to invent one. [DALB] I don't think he is. Of course, various Laws make it legal (indeed, compulsory) for you to know what the opponents' auction means according to the methods that they play. But, like Grattan, I can find no Law stating that you may know what the opponents' auction means according to methods that they do not play. This is not to say that I subscribe to Grattan's position that, in effect, misexplanations are UI to the recipients (nor to Herman's ridiculous position that misexplanations are in effect AI to the partner of the misexplainer, who may continue to explain the auction according to methods that his partnership does not play). Rather, I consider that there may be a problem with the word "explanation" as it is used in Law 20F1: During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. Suppose that you were watching a world-class player on BBO who had Qxxx Qx QJx xxxx and whose partner, vulnerable against not, had opened 2H. And suppose that you saw this player raise to 4H after a pass to his right. Now, the only "explanation" for this is that the player thought that 2H was a strong opening bid - no decent, let alone world-class, player would bid 4H with this facing a weak two bid, but it would be normal facing a strong two bid. Is this the "explanation" of which L20F1 speaks? That is: are the opponents entitled not only to a description of the opponents' methods, but of their rationale for every call they make? David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 30 04:12:43 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:12:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000c01ca1098$ff58bf00$fe0a3d00$@com> References: <000201ca1058$6f751130$4e5f3390$@no> <20090729145910.AC856990C314@relay2.webreus.nl> <000c01ca1098$ff58bf00$fe0a3d00$@com> Message-ID: <000301ca10bb$39916880$acb43980$@no> On Behalf Of David Burn > > [SP] > > Exactly what law (or laws) makes (already authorized) information arising from > opponents' explanations unauthorized for me and my partner once they announce > that their explanation was incorrect? > > [TK] > > There are no such laws, but Grattan is trying to invent one. > > [DALB] > > I don't think he is. Of course, various Laws make it legal (indeed, > compulsory) for you to know what the opponents' auction means according to the > methods that they play. No law that I know of makes it compulsory for me to know the meaning of opponents' auction. I hope what you try to express is that it is compulsory for my opponents to make their agreements and understandings available to me? But, like Grattan, I can find no Law stating that you may > know what the opponents' auction means according to methods that they do not > play. > > This is not to say that I subscribe to Grattan's position that, in effect, > misexplanations are UI to the recipients (nor to Herman's ridiculous position that > misexplanations are in effect AI to the partner of the misexplainer, who may > continue to explain the auction according to methods that his partnership does not > play). > > Rather, I consider that there may be a problem with the word "explanation" > as it is used in Law 20F1: > > During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at > his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. > > Suppose that you were watching a world-class player on BBO who had Qxxx Qx > QJx xxxx and whose partner, vulnerable against not, had opened 2H. And suppose > that you saw this player raise to 4H after a pass to his right. Now, the only > "explanation" for this is that the player thought that 2H was a strong opening bid - > no decent, let alone world-class, player would bid 4H with this facing a weak two > bid, but it would be normal facing a strong two bid. Is this the "explanation" of > which L20F1 speaks? That is: are the opponents entitled not only to a description > of the opponents' methods, but of their rationale for every call they make? I cannot agree that there should be any problem here: The laws are very clear that I have he right to correct information on opponents' agreements and understandings. This implies that all information I can derive from opponents' system declaration, alert (or missing alert), announcement (if that is in use) and their answers to me or my partner is authorized for us. The question we discuss here I believe is: "What happens to such information when it is revealed as being incorrect? My understanding is that information that has been authorized cannot suddenly become unauthorized, but the value of such incorrect information will normally be less than the value of the correct information. However, I must still be entitled to draw my own inferences (at my own risk) from both the existence of information that I know learn is incorrect and the corresponding corrected information. As we have seen from some of the examples in this thread such inference can be vital in the question of actions after opponents apparently have had a misunderstanding. And until someone shows legal foundation for misinformation to be unauthorized I shall refuse to consider it as such. Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 30 09:27:14 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:27:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4A714B52.6080601@skynet.be> ton wrote: > >> If my understanding is correct then the information that there apparently >> has been a misunderstanding between my opponents including the nature of >> this misunderstanding is fully authorized to me and my partner both before >> and after the misinformation in case has been corrected (subject of course >> to Law 21A in case we misunderstand the misinformation). >> > > +=+ Law 16D defines an 'action' as 'a call or play', both in the > heading and significantly, in the preamble.. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > ton: > > I am not sure this has anything to do with the issue we are discussing. > But 16D talks about 'all information arising from a withdrawn action...' > Which includes the explanation given about the meaning of such call (right > or wrong). Anybody objecting? > No Ton, Alain and Grattan are right. L16D clearly starts by saying that a "withdrawn call and play". And L16d2 continues about "wihdrawn actions". An explanation is not "withdrawn". I am not quite certain about the characterization of the wrong explanation as UI to opponents, since L21 does not need the UI laws to avoid giving a player the chance to shange his call, but this attack on the posts by Grattan was, indeed, wrong. And specially for Jeff: IMO. Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jul 30 09:42:25 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:42:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000c01ca1098$ff58bf00$fe0a3d00$@com> Message-ID: <20090730074228.A0416990C394@relay2.webreus.nl> [SP] Exactly what law (or laws) makes (already authorized) information arising from opponents' explanations unauthorized for me and my partner once they announce that their explanation was incorrect? [TK] There are no such laws, but Grattan is trying to invent one. [DALB] I don't think he is. Of course, various Laws make it legal (indeed, compulsory) for you to know what the opponents' auction means according to the methods that they play. But, like Grattan, I can find no Law stating that you may know what the opponents' auction means according to methods that they do not play. ton: What about L 16D1: 'for a non-offending side, ALL information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized......' ? From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 30 11:55:34 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:55:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <4A714B52.6080601@skynet.be> References: <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A714B52.6080601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301ca10fb$e2095aa0$a61c0fe0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > No Ton, Alain and Grattan are right. > L16D clearly starts by saying that a "withdrawn call and play". > And L16d2 continues about "wihdrawn actions". An explanation is not "withdrawn". Well, if the incorrect explanation is not considered withdrawn no information derived from it can ever become unauthorized for the non-offending side that received this explanation; it was authorized when given and just remains so. And that is precisely the question in this thread. Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 30 12:38:07 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:38:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? References: <000201ca1058$6f751130$4e5f3390$@no><20090729145910.AC856990C314@relay2.webreus.nl> <000c01ca1098$ff58bf00$fe0a3d00$@com> Message-ID: <003801ca1104$4af9b2a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? [DALB] > I don't think he is. Of course, various Laws make it legal (indeed, compulsory) for you to know what the opponents' auction means according to the methods that they play. But, like Grattan, I can find no Law stating that you may know what the opponents' auction means according to methods that they do not play. > This is not to say that I subscribe to Grattan's position that, in effect, misexplanations are UI to the recipients (nor to Herman's ridiculous position that misexplanations are in effect AI to the partner of the misexplainer, who may continue to explain the auction according to methods that his partnership does not play). > Rather, I consider that there may be a problem with the word "explanation" as it is used in Law 20F1: > (Grattan) +=+ I think this is a fair summary of the difficulty. I believe that a player may not use the difference between an incorrect explanation and the correction of it as information that opponents are having a misunderstanding. I believe only the correct explanation may be taken account of. As I stated oh so long ago, the law requires the Director to judge whether with only correct explanations the player would have made a different call and, if the answer is 'no' he does not allow a change of call. In this case all else that follows from it will not allow of a change of call. There is a problem since it is difficult to find in the laws a clear provision for the Director to act upon. That is what I have been searching for - and whether it is with the word 'explanation' or otherwise it does appear that the law is deficient of specificity. With regard to David's comment on Herman's position, I believe the actions of the players should conform to Law 75. At a tangent to these questions I have been asked, in private correspondence, for my opinion on the status of a gratuitous remark. My response was: <<< A distinction should be made between cases where a player volunteers information to an opponent and cases where a player passes a gratuitous remark within the meaning of Law 74B2. A gratuitous remark is external to the game; if an opponent infers something from such a remark he acts upon it at his own risk; it is not 'information' given to him by an opponent or conveyed to him from some other source. The opponent has read something from a remark not intended to convey information. If the Director judges that a gratuitous remark was calculated to deceive (either intended to deceive or such that the player making it should have realized it could well mislead) the remark falls within the scope of Law 73D2. Such is my opinion. Law 74B2 labels a gratuitous remark as a breach of etiquette and employs the phrase 'should refrain from'. So failure to comply will not often be penalized, but it is a violation and the Director may find cause (such as repetitious violations) to penalize. I consider such a penalty to be a Law 91 penalty since it relates to behaviour rather than procedure. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 30 12:53:31 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:53:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? References: <000201ca1058$6f751130$4e5f3390$@no><20090729145910.AC856990C314@relay2.webreus.nl> <000c01ca1098$ff58bf00$fe0a3d00$@com> Message-ID: <003901ca1104$4b37a600$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? > Suppose that you were watching a world-class player on BBO who had Qxxx Qx QJx xxxx and whose partner, vulnerable against not, had opened 2H. And suppose that you saw this player raise to 4H after a pass to his right. Now, the only "explanation" for this is that the player thought that 2H was a strong opening bid - no decent, let alone world-class, player would bid 4H with this facing a weak two bid, but it would be normal facing a strong two bid. Is this the "explanation" of which L20F1 speaks? That is: are the opponents entitled not only to a description of the opponents' methods, but of their rationale for every call they make? > +=+ I believe a 'correct' explanation is a correct explanation in context of correct explanations of the partnership's agreed methods. So in the above situation the explanation that an opponent should receive, and on which his choice of calls may be based, is the meaning of 4H opposite a Weak 2H bid. It is possible this may, for example, be two-way - either pre-emptive or strong and expecting the contract to make. The question for the Director to judge is whether the opponent, with only this information would (could well) make a different call. The opponent is not entitled to know the content of the 4H bidder's hand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 30 12:59:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:59:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? References: <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl><4A714B52.6080601@skynet.be> <000301ca10fb$e2095aa0$a61c0fe0$@no> Message-ID: <004401ca1104$d7b53980$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> No Ton, Alain and Grattan are right. >> L16D clearly starts by saying that a "withdrawn call and play". >> And L16d2 continues about "wihdrawn actions". An explanation is not > "withdrawn". > > Well, if the incorrect explanation is not considered withdrawn no > information derived from it can ever become unauthorized for the > non-offending side that received this explanation; it was authorized when > given and just remains so. > > And that is precisely the question in this thread. > > Sven > +=+ An explanation is not 'withdrawn' it is 'corrected'. The correct explanation is substituted for the incorrect explanation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 30 13:37:31 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:37:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000301ca10fb$e2095aa0$a61c0fe0$@no> References: <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A714B52.6080601@skynet.be> <000301ca10fb$e2095aa0$a61c0fe0$@no> Message-ID: <4A7185FB.2090608@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> No Ton, Alain and Grattan are right. >> L16D clearly starts by saying that a "withdrawn call and play". >> And L16d2 continues about "wihdrawn actions". An explanation is not > "withdrawn". > > Well, if the incorrect explanation is not considered withdrawn no > information derived from it can ever become unauthorized for the > non-offending side that received this explanation; it was authorized when > given and just remains so. > > And that is precisely the question in this thread. > Yes Sven, it is, but your argument was not a correct one. FWIW, I agree with you that there is no UI here. The opponent cannot change his call, but this is because of (Grattan's interpretation of) L21, not because of UI. > Sven > From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 30 13:36:47 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:36:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <004401ca1104$d7b53980$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl><4A714B52.6080601@skynet.be> <000301ca10fb$e2095aa0$a61c0fe0$@no> <004401ca1104$d7b53980$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000401ca110a$058de190$10a9a4b0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan .............. > > Well, if the incorrect explanation is not considered withdrawn no > > information derived from it can ever become unauthorized for the > > non-offending side that received this explanation; it was authorized when > > given and just remains so. > > > > And that is precisely the question in this thread. > > > > Sven > > > +=+ An explanation is not 'withdrawn' it is 'corrected'. > The correct explanation is substituted for the incorrect > explanation. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Precisely. And I see no reason why the non-offending side may not continue to use whatever inference they can now infer from the incorrect explanation, the fact that it was originally given, the fact that it was corrected and the fact that either player on the offending side may have acted on a misunderstanding. But once the incorrect explanation has been corrected any such inference by players on the non-offending side must of course be drawn by them at their own risk. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 30 13:49:50 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:49:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000401ca110a$058de190$10a9a4b0$@no> References: <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl><4A714B52.6080601@skynet.be> <000301ca10fb$e2095aa0$a61c0fe0$@no> <004401ca1104$d7b53980$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000401ca110a$058de190$10a9a4b0$@no> Message-ID: <4A7188DE.3010504@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Grattan > .............. > >>> Well, if the incorrect explanation is not considered withdrawn no >>> information derived from it can ever become unauthorized for the >>> non-offending side that received this explanation; it was authorized >>> > when > >>> given and just remains so. >>> >>> And that is precisely the question in this thread. >>> >>> Sven >>> >>> >> +=+ An explanation is not 'withdrawn' it is 'corrected'. >> The correct explanation is substituted for the incorrect >> explanation. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Precisely. > > And I see no reason why the non-offending side may not continue to use > whatever inference they can now infer from the incorrect explanation, the > fact that it was originally given, the fact that it was corrected and the > fact that either player on the offending side may have acted on a > misunderstanding. But once the incorrect explanation has been corrected any > such inference by players on the non-offending side must of course be drawn > by them at their own risk. > AG : by the way that's one of the main reasons why I'm reluctant to admit this use. It would be easy, then, for a player to feign a misunderstanding (e.g; by not alerting), have their opponent draw false inferences, and have the TD tell them they did so at their own risk. This would be much more difficult to detect then classical L23 cases, e.g. illegitimate tempi. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 30 14:03:50 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:03:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <4A7185FB.2090608@skynet.be> References: <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A714B52.6080601@skynet.be> <000301ca10fb$e2095aa0$a61c0fe0$@no> <4A7185FB.2090608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > > Well, if the incorrect explanation is not considered withdrawn no > > information derived from it can ever become unauthorized for the > > non-offending side that received this explanation; it was authorized > > when given and just remains so. > > > > And that is precisely the question in this thread. > > > > Yes Sven, it is, but your argument was not a correct one. > FWIW, I agree with you that there is no UI here. > The opponent cannot change his call, but this is because of (Grattan's > interpretation of) L21, not because of UI. My point is NOT if non-offending side can change a call under Law 21B1(a), it is if non-offending side may base further actions on the knowledge that there was an incorrect explanation and thus probably a misunderstanding between opponents. And my position is that they may, but only at their own risk. The inference that opponents probably have had a misunderstanding cannot be unauthorized information to a non-offending side once it has been revealed. The question that I believe is Grattan's concern is if an already made call may be withdrawn and replaced with another call under Law 21B1(a) on the argument that had the player at the time of his first call known that the offending side probably had a misunderstanding he would have made a different call. Here I (in case) agree with Grattan that the knowledge of a possible (or likely) misunderstanding is not (and should not be) available to opponents before it is revealed, and that therefore no call made before such revelation may be changed under Law 21B1(a). Regards sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jul 30 14:25:24 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:25:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no> Message-ID: <20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> Here I (in case) agree with Grattan that the knowledge of a possible (or likely) misunderstanding is not (and should not be) available to opponents before it is revealed, and that therefore no call made before such revelation may be changed under Law 21B1(a). Regards sven ton: We agreed for some time but not anymore. Under 21B1(a) the last call may be changed (under restirctions) and that last call can be made before the revelation, isn't it? From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jul 30 14:48:03 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:48:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000c01ca1098$ff58bf00$fe0a3d00$@com> References: <000201ca1058$6f751130$4e5f3390$@no> <20090729145910.AC856990C314@relay2.webreus.nl> <000c01ca1098$ff58bf00$fe0a3d00$@com> Message-ID: <713B8368-04D5-4B6B-B905-F3DAD191BE82@btinternet.com> On 29 Jul 2009, at 23:07, David Burn wrote: > Suppose that you were watching a world-class player on BBO who had > Qxxx Qx > QJx xxxx and whose partner, vulnerable against not, had opened 2H. And > suppose that you saw this player raise to 4H after a pass to his > right. Now, > the only "explanation" for this is that the player thought that 2H > was a > strong opening bid - no decent, let alone world-class, player would > bid 4H > with this facing a weak two bid, but it would be normal facing a > strong two > bid. Since you are a world class player and I am not, I'll take your word that this is "normal", but it does seem premature to me to lock yourself in to a heart contract when you might be better off in any of the other four denominations. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090730/88b8d9c1/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 30 14:49:17 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:49:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Re Misinformation and UI. Message-ID: <005401ca1114$27d97020$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no> <20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no> On Behalf Of ton > Here I (in case) agree with Grattan that the knowledge of a possible (or > likely) misunderstanding is not (and should not be) available to opponents before > it is revealed, and that therefore no call made before such revelation may be > changed under Law 21B1(a). > > Regards sven > > > ton: > We agreed for some time but not anymore. Under 21B1(a) the last call may be > changed (under restirctions) and that last call can be made before the revelation, > isn't it? > I think it may be changed on the ground that the explanation was incorrect, but not on the ground that the explanation was changed. Example: I am in possession of explanation A and make call A. Then before my partner calls I am informed that explanation A was incorrect and that the correct explanation is B. I may now argue that had I had explanation B instead of A I would have made call B instead of call A, so I request the right to change my call. This request shall obviously be granted. But if I argue that as a consequence of the changed explanation I know that opponents may have had a misunderstanding affecting some of their calls, and because of this I want to change my call, then this request shall NOT be granted. However, the knowledge that opponents changed their explanation and probably have had some misunderstanding is fully authorized for me so that I may take also this knowledge into consideration (at my own risk!) when selecting my further actions. Comments? Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 30 16:45:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:45:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? References: <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl> <4A714B52.6080601@skynet.be><000301ca10fb$e2095aa0$a61c0fe0$@no> <4A7185FB.2090608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00d201ca1124$780ec850$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> ............ >>> No Ton, Alain and Grattan are right. >>> L16D clearly starts by saying that a "withdrawn call and play". >>> And L16d2 continues about "wihdrawn actions". An explanation is not >> "withdrawn". >> >> Well, if the incorrect explanation is not considered withdrawn no >> information derived from it can ever become unauthorized for the >> non-offending side that received this explanation; it was authorized when >> given and just remains so. >> >> And that is precisely the question in this thread. >> > > Yes Sven, it is, but your argument was not a correct one. > FWIW, I agree with you that there is no UI here. > The opponent cannot change his call, but this is because > of (Grattan's interpretation of) L21, not because of UI. > >> Sven >> +=+ A little earlier ton said "There are no such laws, but Grattan is trying to invent one" It is obvuiously time for myself, and ton (and Kojak but he reminds us of this on occasion), to refresh ourselves with an awareness that the WBFLC has minuted its decision that, unless supported by a minute of the WBFLC, any comments, criticisms or commentaries, we may publish express our personal opinions not necessarily the opinions of the WBFLC. Only this last speaks ex cathedra. My contributions here are intended on that basis. In seeking a path through a difficulty in the law I was not seeking to create law but to give a view as to how the Laws might be applied on the basis of that minute of the WBFLC in 1998. I do believe ton has found something in the law that is not actually there. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 30 16:58:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:58:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no><20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no> Message-ID: <00ec01ca1126$3b99b900$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? > On Behalf Of ton >> Here I (in case) agree with Grattan that the knowledge of a possible (or >> likely) misunderstanding is not (and should not be) available to >> opponents > before >> it is revealed, and that therefore no call made before such revelation >> may > be >> changed under Law 21B1(a). >> >> Regards sven >> >> >> ton: >> We agreed for some time but not anymore. Under 21B1(a) the last call may > be >> changed (under restirctions) and that last call can be made before the > revelation, >> isn't it? >> > > I think it may be changed on the ground that the explanation was > incorrect, > but not on the ground that the explanation was changed. > > Example: > > I am in possession of explanation A and make call A. > > Then before my partner calls I am informed that explanation A was > incorrect > and that the correct explanation is B. > I may now argue that had I had explanation B instead of A I would have > made > call B instead of call A, so I request the right to change my call. > This request shall obviously be granted. > > But if I argue that as a consequence of the changed explanation I know > that > opponents may have had a misunderstanding affecting some of their calls, > and > because of this I want to change my call, then this request shall NOT be > granted. > > However, the knowledge that opponents changed their explanation and > probably > have had some misunderstanding is fully authorized for me so that I may > take > also this knowledge into consideration (at my own risk!) when selecting my > further actions. > > Comments? > +=+ Where does the law say that, please? The corrected explanation replaces the incorrect explanation and I do not recall any statement in the laws that the incorrect explanation may continue to be used by the player who received it. To correct is 'to put right' - see dictionary. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 30 17:03:20 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:03:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no> References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no> <20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no> Message-ID: <4A71B638.1050806@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of ton >> Here I (in case) agree with Grattan that the knowledge of a possible (or >> likely) misunderstanding is not (and should not be) available to opponents > before >> it is revealed, and that therefore no call made before such revelation may > be >> changed under Law 21B1(a). >> >> Regards sven >> >> >> ton: >> We agreed for some time but not anymore. Under 21B1(a) the last call may > be >> changed (under restirctions) and that last call can be made before the > revelation, >> isn't it? >> > > I think it may be changed on the ground that the explanation was incorrect, > but not on the ground that the explanation was changed. > > Example: > > I am in possession of explanation A and make call A. > > Then before my partner calls I am informed that explanation A was incorrect > and that the correct explanation is B. > I may now argue that had I had explanation B instead of A I would have made > call B instead of call A, so I request the right to change my call. > This request shall obviously be granted. > > But if I argue that as a consequence of the changed explanation I know that > opponents may have had a misunderstanding affecting some of their calls, and > because of this I want to change my call, then this request shall NOT be > granted. > > However, the knowledge that opponents changed their explanation and probably > have had some misunderstanding is fully authorized for me so that I may take > also this knowledge into consideration (at my own risk!) when selecting my > further actions. > > Comments? > Completely correct. You might for instance clarify this, Sven, by adding that if the auction continues, you may use the information in your next call, and that you may use the information that they may be too high when selecting your lead and other plays afterwards. > Regards Sven > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 30 17:07:20 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:07:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <00ec01ca1126$3b99b900$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no><20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no> <00ec01ca1126$3b99b900$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A71B728.8090602@skynet.be> Interesting. Herman is now in complete agreement with Sven, but in disagreement with both Grattan and Ton, who are miles apart on totally different positions. Who said the laws were clear? Herman. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott (also perhaps permanently suspended) > ********************************** > " Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just, > But four times he who gets his blow in fust." > [Henry Wheeler Shaw]. > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:26 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? > > >> On Behalf Of ton >>> Here I (in case) agree with Grattan that the knowledge of a possible (or >>> likely) misunderstanding is not (and should not be) available to >>> opponents >> before >>> it is revealed, and that therefore no call made before such revelation >>> may >> be >>> changed under Law 21B1(a). >>> >>> Regards sven >>> >>> >>> ton: >>> We agreed for some time but not anymore. Under 21B1(a) the last call may >> be >>> changed (under restirctions) and that last call can be made before the >> revelation, >>> isn't it? >>> >> I think it may be changed on the ground that the explanation was >> incorrect, >> but not on the ground that the explanation was changed. >> >> Example: >> >> I am in possession of explanation A and make call A. >> >> Then before my partner calls I am informed that explanation A was >> incorrect >> and that the correct explanation is B. >> I may now argue that had I had explanation B instead of A I would have >> made >> call B instead of call A, so I request the right to change my call. >> This request shall obviously be granted. >> >> But if I argue that as a consequence of the changed explanation I know >> that >> opponents may have had a misunderstanding affecting some of their calls, >> and >> because of this I want to change my call, then this request shall NOT be >> granted. >> >> However, the knowledge that opponents changed their explanation and >> probably >> have had some misunderstanding is fully authorized for me so that I may >> take >> also this knowledge into consideration (at my own risk!) when selecting my >> further actions. >> >> Comments? >> > +=+ Where does the law say that, please? > The corrected explanation replaces the incorrect > explanation and I do not recall any statement in the laws > that the incorrect explanation may continue to be used > by the player who received it. > To correct is 'to put right' - see dictionary. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jul 30 17:56:09 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:56:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <00d201ca1124$780ec850$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <20090730155617.83313990C434@relay2.webreus.nl> I do believe ton has found something in the law that is not actually there. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: Dear Grattan, You did not write this without a grin on your face I hope. We both are interpreting laws that do not explicitly tell how to act. And I still think that my approach is closer to a desired approach than yours. Furthermore as long as AC are not involved the whole bridge world ( I am talking about the bridge players) do act as I interpret the laws. I don not believe that any TD up till now has ever told any player at any table in whatever tournament and country, that the info coming from a wrong explanation is UI for the non-offending side, nor do I think that this is a workable situation. But let us wait till Sao Paulo, See you, ton From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Jul 30 17:59:10 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:59:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no> References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no><20090730122533.14BE6485C116 @relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no> Message-ID: <4A71C34E.9030001@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of ton >> Here I (in case) agree with Grattan that the knowledge of a possible (or >> likely) misunderstanding is not (and should not be) available to opponents > before >> it is revealed, and that therefore no call made before such revelation may > be >> changed under Law 21B1(a). >> >> Regards sven >> >> >> ton: >> We agreed for some time but not anymore. Under 21B1(a) the last call may > be >> changed (under restirctions) and that last call can be made before the > revelation, >> isn't it? >> > > I think it may be changed on the ground that the explanation was incorrect, > but not on the ground that the explanation was changed. > > Example: > > I am in possession of explanation A and make call A. > > Then before my partner calls I am informed that explanation A was incorrect > and that the correct explanation is B. > I may now argue that had I had explanation B instead of A I would have made > call B instead of call A, so I request the right to change my call. > This request shall obviously be granted. > > But if I argue that as a consequence of the changed explanation I know that > opponents may have had a misunderstanding affecting some of their calls, and > because of this I want to change my call, then this request shall NOT be > granted. > > However, the knowledge that opponents changed their explanation and probably > have had some misunderstanding is fully authorized for me so that I may take > also this knowledge into consideration (at my own risk!) when selecting my > further actions. > > Comments? this part seemed quite obvious to me, but... L16A1 no more defines as AI "mannerisms of opponents" as it did in 97 laws. is this modification purposeful? jpr > > Regards Sven -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From blml at arcor.de Thu Jul 30 18:46:10 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:46:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <4A7188DE.3010504@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A7188DE.3010504@ulb.ac.be> <20090729135854.4ABD9990C322@relay2.webreus.nl><4A714B52.6080601@skynet.be> <000301ca10fb$e2095aa0$a61c0fe0$@no> <004401ca1104$d7b53980$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000401ca110a$058de190$10a9a4b0$@no> Message-ID: <27803319.1248972370239.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > On Behalf Of Grattan > > .............. > > > >>> Well, if the incorrect explanation is not considered withdrawn no > >>> information derived from it can ever become unauthorized for the > >>> non-offending side that received this explanation; it was authorized > >>> > > when > > > >>> given and just remains so. > >>> > >>> And that is precisely the question in this thread. > >>> > >>> Sven > >>> > >>> > >> +=+ An explanation is not 'withdrawn' it is 'corrected'. > >> The correct explanation is substituted for the incorrect > >> explanation. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> > > > > Precisely. > > > > And I see no reason why the non-offending side may not continue to use > > whatever inference they can now infer from the incorrect explanation, the > > fact that it was originally given, the fact that it was corrected and the > > fact that either player on the offending side may have acted on a > > misunderstanding. But once the incorrect explanation has been corrected > any > > such inference by players on the non-offending side must of course be > drawn > > by them at their own risk. > > > AG : by the way that's one of the main reasons why I'm reluctant to > admit this use. It would be easy, then, for a player to feign a > misunderstanding (e.g; by not alerting), have their opponent draw false > inferences, and have the TD tell them they did so at their own risk. > This would be much more difficult to detect then classical L23 cases, > e.g. illegitimate tempi. How about a "Probst 1NT opener"? It is announced as "14-16, ooops, sorry, I misspoke, 15-17". If one takes the position that the "14-16" part here is UI, then later during the play the non-offending side has to assume that the 1 NT opener holds 17 HCP, because that is the only logical alternative not "demonstrably" suggested by such "UI". Evidently that is undesirable. Thomas Der E-Mail-Dienst PIA basic belegt im Test der Stiftung Warentest unter den kostenfreien Angeboten mit dem Qualit?tsurteil 3,0 den zweiten Platz! (Testheft Juli 2009, Artikel "E-Mail-Dienste - Besser gratis") JETZT TESTEN: www.arcor.de/rd/pia_sw From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 30 19:11:07 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:11:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <00ec01ca1126$3b99b900$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no><20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no> <00ec01ca1126$3b99b900$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000301ca1138$ba3ea970$2ebbfc50$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan ............... > > I think it may be changed on the ground that the explanation was > > incorrect, > > but not on the ground that the explanation was changed. > > > > Example: > > > > I am in possession of explanation A and make call A. > > > > Then before my partner calls I am informed that explanation A was > > incorrect > > and that the correct explanation is B. > > I may now argue that had I had explanation B instead of A I would have > > made > > call B instead of call A, so I request the right to change my call. > > This request shall obviously be granted. > > > > But if I argue that as a consequence of the changed explanation I know > > that > > opponents may have had a misunderstanding affecting some of their calls, > > and > > because of this I want to change my call, then this request shall NOT be > > granted. > > > > However, the knowledge that opponents changed their explanation and > > probably > > have had some misunderstanding is fully authorized for me so that I may > > take > > also this knowledge into consideration (at my own risk!) when selecting my > > further actions. > > > > Comments? > > > +=+ Where does the law say that, please? > The corrected explanation replaces the incorrect > explanation and I do not recall any statement in the laws > that the incorrect explanation may continue to be used > by the player who received it. > To correct is 'to put right' - see dictionary. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ My counter-questions is: Where does the law say that information (knowledge) that undoubtedly has been authorized for me can become unauthorized without any irregularity committed by me or my partner? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 30 19:15:05 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:15:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <4A71C34E.9030001@meteo.fr> References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no><20090730122533.14BE6485C116 @relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no> <4A71C34E.9030001@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000401ca1139$48672dd0$d9358970$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jean- > Pierre Rocafort > Sent: 30. juli 2009 17:59 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? > > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > On Behalf Of ton > >> Here I (in case) agree with Grattan that the knowledge of a possible > >> (or > >> likely) misunderstanding is not (and should not be) available to > >> opponents > > before > >> it is revealed, and that therefore no call made before such > >> revelation may > > be > >> changed under Law 21B1(a). > >> > >> Regards sven > >> > >> > >> ton: > >> We agreed for some time but not anymore. Under 21B1(a) the last call > >> may > > be > >> changed (under restirctions) and that last call can be made before > >> the > > revelation, > >> isn't it? > >> > > > > I think it may be changed on the ground that the explanation was > > incorrect, but not on the ground that the explanation was changed. > > > > Example: > > > > I am in possession of explanation A and make call A. > > > > Then before my partner calls I am informed that explanation A was > > incorrect and that the correct explanation is B. > > I may now argue that had I had explanation B instead of A I would have > > made call B instead of call A, so I request the right to change my call. > > This request shall obviously be granted. > > > > But if I argue that as a consequence of the changed explanation I know > > that opponents may have had a misunderstanding affecting some of their > > calls, and because of this I want to change my call, then this request > > shall NOT be granted. > > > > However, the knowledge that opponents changed their explanation and > > probably have had some misunderstanding is fully authorized for me so > > that I may take also this knowledge into consideration (at my own > > risk!) when selecting my further actions. > > > > Comments? > > this part seemed quite obvious to me, but... > L16A1 no more defines as AI "mannerisms of opponents" as it did in 97 laws. is > this modification purposeful? > Opponents' mannerisms are certainly AI to me, but I may only use my knowledge about their mannerism on my own risk. Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 31 01:32:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:32:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no><20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no><00ec01ca1126$3b99b900$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000301ca1138$ba3ea970$2ebbfc50$@no> Message-ID: <006701ca116e$10b91440$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? >> > >> +=+ Where does the law say that, please? >> The corrected explanation replaces the incorrect >> explanation and I do not recall any statement in the laws >> that the incorrect explanation may continue to be used >> by the player who received it. >> To correct is 'to put right' - see dictionary. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > My counter-questions is: Where does the law say that > information (knowledge) that undoubtedly has been authorized for me can become unauthorized without > any irregularity committed by me or my partner? > (WBFLC minute, 24th august 1998) "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or play.". (Grattan) There is no longer a separate statement as to the scope of the laws but a corresponding statement now appears in the Introduction and I judge that the principle remains unaltered. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 31 02:26:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:26:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? References: <20090730155617.83313990C434@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <00a201ca1175$dd5b8990$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? > > I do believe ton has found something in the law that > is not actually there. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Dear Grattan, > > You did not write this without a grin on your face I hope. > We both are interpreting laws that do not explicitly tell how to act. > > And I still think that my approach is closer to a desired approach than > yours. > Furthermore as long as AC are not involved the whole bridge world ( I am > talking about the bridge players) do act as I interpret the laws. I don > not > believe that any TD up till now has ever told any player at any table in > whatever tournament and country, that the info coming from a wrong > explanation is UI for the non-offending side, nor do I think that this is > a > workable situation. > > But let us wait till Sao Paulo, > > See you, > > ton > +=+ Hi ton, You are right that only the corporate decision of the Laws Committee, in Sao Paulo, can resolve the matter. Let me say that in my opinion for the non-offending side it is AI that a correction has been made [as a 'legal procedure authorized in the laws' - see 16A1(c)] but there is no authorization that I can see allowing a player to use misinformation knowing it to be such. In the absence of such authorization the position is the position identified and ruled upon in the 1998 minute. The words in the 1997 law book to which that relates are repeated identically in the 2007 law book. It will be an interesting discussion. Regards, ~ G ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jul 31 04:22:39 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:22:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1NT, 1NT, wherefore art thou 1NT? In-Reply-To: <200907271625.n6RGPodh021414@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200907271625.n6RGPodh021414@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A72556F.2040907@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Originally, the cards were swords (spades), cups (hearts), coins > (diamonds) and cudgels (clubs). They still are in traditional Spanish cards. I'm surprised no one has followed up on this. The whist ranks of the suits were hearts, diamonds, clubs, spades. This corresponded to the social classes the suits represent: clergy (more obvious with cups than hearts if you are familiar with Christian ritual), merchants (more obvious with coins than diamonds), soldiers (clubs or cudgels), peasants (spades -- I don't understand swords here). I'm not sure exactly why spades got promoted to the top, but I understand it was considered a great innovation at the time. Presumably notrump is at the very top because it's harder to win tricks if you don't have lots of trumps to win them with. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jul 31 04:26:57 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:26:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] In-Reply-To: <4A71DD3D.5080802@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A71DD3D.5080802@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A725671.5050101@nhcc.net> > From: Sven Pran > Opponents' mannerisms are certainly AI to me... I would have thought so too, but it isn't clear to me exactly which Law in the 2007 book makes it so. If I can no longer play KJT opposite Axx by leading the jack and watching what an opponent does, that is a revolutionary change in the game. Likewise if _anything_ an opponent voluntarily does is not AI to me. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 31 03:54:34 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:54:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <003801ca1104$4af9b2a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000201ca1058$6f751130$4e5f3390$@no><20090729145910.AC856990C314@relay2.webreus.nl> <000c01ca1098$ff58bf00$fe0a3d00$@com> <003801ca1104$4af9b2a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <916034.55333.qm@web28510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ ... I believe that a player may not use the difference between an incorrect explanation and the correction of it as information that opponents are having a misunderstanding. I believe only the correct explanation may be taken account of. [Nigel] IMO the law book doesn't make this clear. Furthermore. In practice such an interpretation is academic because few players are capable of the mental contortions that might enable them to take no advantage of such information.. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090731/2aeeec82/attachment.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jul 31 08:53:33 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:53:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?] In-Reply-To: <4A725671.5050101@nhcc.net> References: <4A71DD3D.5080802@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A725671.5050101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4A7294ED.30504@t-online.de> Steve Willner schrieb: >> From: Sven Pran >> Opponents' mannerisms are certainly AI to me... > > I would have thought so too, but it isn't clear to me exactly which Law > in the 2007 book makes it so. L73D1 and L16A1c > > If I can no longer play KJT opposite Axx by leading the jack and > watching what an opponent does, that is a revolutionary change in the > game. Likewise if _anything_ an opponent voluntarily does is not AI to me. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com Fri Jul 31 09:34:34 2009 From: ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com (Ranju Bhattacharjee) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:04:34 +0530 Subject: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding Message-ID: I need some explanation or interpretation from experts regarding partnership agreement and partnership understanding. When partnership understanding estlablished. A pair played 4 rounds of swiss league and one of the player open 1NT with 6-3-3-1 with 5 HCP ( CC shows 15-17) does it mean that they have partnership understanding ? Ranju Bhattacharjee _________________________________________________________________ MSN Quiz The clash is on to find the best brains. Test your skills with avid quizzers on MSN quiz. http://specials.msn.co.in/WLSocialNetworkConnector/Chrome.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090731/33ee1160/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 31 09:41:53 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:41:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and UI? In-Reply-To: <006701ca116e$10b91440$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000501ca110d$cd6b78a0$684269e0$@no><20090730122533.14BE6485C116@relay2.webreus.nl> <000d01ca1119$553e6ed0$ffbb4c70$@no><00ec01ca1126$3b99b900$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000301ca1138$ba3ea970$2ebbfc50$@no> <006701ca116e$10b91440$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000f01ca11b2$5fccab20$1f660160$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan ................. > (WBFLC minute, 24th august 1998) > "The Secretary drew attention to those who > argued that where an action was stated in the laws > (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions if > not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The > Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the > Laws states that the laws define correct procedure > and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, > 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction > of law if information deriving from it is used in the > auction or play.". > (Grattan) The way I understand this minute is that it addresses actions not explicitly allowed in the laws and considers any information derived from such actions extraneous and unauthorized, but only for the offending side. I cannot see that this minute denies a non-offending side any rights they otherwise have, for instance from Law 73D1? It looks to me much too far-fetched to try applying this principle on knowledge about the existence of information that was authorized and relevant, but that has become superseded by new information. I cannot imagine the intention of WBFLC to be that just knowledge of the existence of an irregularity shall be unauthorized for the non-offending side? (However, I do consider any use of such knowledge to be solely at the risk of the user.) Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 31 09:49:41 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:49:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001001ca11b3$764ee2e0$62eca8a0$@no> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ranju Bhattacharjee Sent: 31. juli 2009 09:35 To: Bridge Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding I need some explanation or interpretation from experts regarding partnership agreement and partnership understanding. When partnership understanding estlablished. A pair played 4 rounds of swiss league and one of the player open 1NT with 6-3-3-1 with 5 HCP ( CC shows 15-17) does it mean that they have partnership understanding ? ? Reply: No, the very first time that happens it is a psychic call. But if a psyche is repeated so that partner can reasonably be aware of the possibility in the future it becomes a partnership understanding. Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 31 10:10:14 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:10:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: <001001ca11b3$764ee2e0$62eca8a0$@no> References: <001001ca11b3$764ee2e0$62eca8a0$@no> Message-ID: <4A72A6E6.9050809@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Ranju Bhattacharjee > Sent: 31. juli 2009 09:35 > To: Bridge Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding > > I need some explanation or interpretation from experts regarding partnership > agreement and partnership understanding. When partnership understanding > estlablished. A pair played 4 rounds of swiss league and one of the player > open 1NT with 6-3-3-1 with 5 HCP ( CC shows 15-17) does it mean that they > have partnership understanding ? > > Reply: > > No, the very first time that happens it is a psychic call. > > But if a psyche is repeated so that partner can reasonably be aware of the > possibility in the future it becomes a partnership understanding. > > Regards Sven > Sven is absolutely correct, but I'd like to know in which context you ask the question, Ranju. Do you ask the question in the context of misinformation (I assume the opponents were not alerted to the fact that this might happen)? If that is indeed the question, then I would say that when this happens for the first time, there is nothing the opponents could be told. If this is not the first time, then the opponents are entitled to the information "my partner sometimes psyches a 1NT opener in such and such position". Depending on the environment in which this happens, that is common bridge knowledge, and if it is not said that is no infraction (example: in England, psyches are frequent, so announcing that a partner sometimes psyches is superfluous; but in Belgium, psyching is very rare, so when I play against people I do not know I will (have to) let them know that I do psyche sometimes). If the psyche has not been made known to the opponents, then one should answer the next question: are the opponents damaged through not knowing that a psyche was possible. Notice the "possible". They are not entitled to know that it is a psyche this time, only that a psyche is possible. Since it is very rare that a non-revealed psyche frequency causes damage, and since it is almost impossible to prove that a psyche occured for the first time - I almost always rule that any psyche carries some non-revealed frequency. "I may well believe you that it's the first time, but there is the possibility that you knew that he might do it, so the opponents are also entitled to know that he might do it". That's if you wanted to know about misinformation. If you want to know if the psyche is permitted, that's a different question. Herman. From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri Jul 31 10:24:36 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:24:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: <4A72A6E6.9050809@skynet.be> References: <001001ca11b3$764ee2e0$62eca8a0$@no> <4A72A6E6.9050809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9A674CB21E9448ECA7548FC50FC169E0@mikePC> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > (example: in England, psyches are frequent, so announcing that a partner > sometimes psyches is superfluous; > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Herman is wrong In England psyches are not frequent. IMHO (I direct in Clubs Counties and National events in England and Wales) psyches are extremely rare. Im not prepared to get into a 200 thread argument about what counts as frequent, just trust me - In England psyches are not frequent. I am a TD. :) Mike From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 31 10:56:58 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:56:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: <9A674CB21E9448ECA7548FC50FC169E0@mikePC> References: <001001ca11b3$764ee2e0$62eca8a0$@no> <4A72A6E6.9050809@skynet.be> <9A674CB21E9448ECA7548FC50FC169E0@mikePC> Message-ID: <4A72B1DA.5020909@skynet.be> Mike Amos wrote: > > Herman is wrong > In England psyches are not frequent. > > IMHO (I direct in Clubs Counties and National events in England and Wales) > psyches are extremely rare. > Im not prepared to get into a 200 thread argument about what counts as > frequent, just trust me - In England psyches are not frequent. I am a TD. > :) > > Mike > OK Mike. My argument holds anyway. If psyches are more frequent, then the mention "my partner sometimes psyches" becomes less necessary. Herman. From ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com Fri Jul 31 19:43:00 2009 From: ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com (Ranju Bhattacharjee) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:13:00 +0530 Subject: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: <001001ca11b3$764ee2e0$62eca8a0$@no> References: <001001ca11b3$764ee2e0$62eca8a0$@no> Message-ID: Thank you Svan Pran but I have not got the interpretation of partnership understanding and partnership agreement. Ranju BHattacharjee > From: svenpran at online.no > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:49:41 +0200 > Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding > > > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Ranju Bhattacharjee > Sent: 31. juli 2009 09:35 > To: Bridge Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding > > I need some explanation or interpretation from experts regarding partnership > agreement and partnership understanding. When partnership understanding > estlablished. A pair played 4 rounds of swiss league and one of the player > open 1NT with 6-3-3-1 with 5 HCP ( CC shows 15-17) does it mean that they > have partnership understanding ? > > Reply: > > No, the very first time that happens it is a psychic call. > > But if a psyche is repeated so that partner can reasonably be aware of the > possibility in the future it becomes a partnership understanding. > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ MSN Quiz The clash is on to find the best brains. Test your skills with avid quizzers on MSN quiz. http://specials.msn.co.in/WLSocialNetworkConnector/Chrome.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090731/7165d10b/attachment.html From ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com Fri Jul 31 19:46:39 2009 From: ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com (Ranju Bhattacharjee) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:16:39 +0530 Subject: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: <4A72A6E6.9050809@skynet.be> References: <001001ca11b3$764ee2e0$62eca8a0$@no> <4A72A6E6.9050809@skynet.be> Message-ID: Thank You Herman. Ranju > Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:10:14 +0200 > From: Hermandw at skynet.be > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > > Ranju Bhattacharjee > > Sent: 31. juli 2009 09:35 > > To: Bridge Law Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML) Partnership Understanding > > > > I need some explanation or interpretation from experts regarding partnership > > agreement and partnership understanding. When partnership understanding > > estlablished. A pair played 4 rounds of swiss league and one of the player > > open 1NT with 6-3-3-1 with 5 HCP ( CC shows 15-17) does it mean that they > > have partnership understanding ? > > > > Reply: > > > > No, the very first time that happens it is a psychic call. > > > > But if a psyche is repeated so that partner can reasonably be aware of the > > possibility in the future it becomes a partnership understanding. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > Sven is absolutely correct, but I'd like to know in which context you > ask the question, Ranju. > > Do you ask the question in the context of misinformation (I assume the > opponents were not alerted to the fact that this might happen)? > If that is indeed the question, then I would say that when this happens > for the first time, there is nothing the opponents could be told. If > this is not the first time, then the opponents are entitled to the > information "my partner sometimes psyches a 1NT opener in such and such > position". Depending on the environment in which this happens, that is > common bridge knowledge, and if it is not said that is no infraction > (example: in England, psyches are frequent, so announcing that a partner > sometimes psyches is superfluous; but in Belgium, psyching is very rare, > so when I play against people I do not know I will (have to) let them > know that I do psyche sometimes). > If the psyche has not been made known to the opponents, then one should > answer the next question: are the opponents damaged through not knowing > that a psyche was possible. Notice the "possible". They are not entitled > to know that it is a psyche this time, only that a psyche is possible. > > Since it is very rare that a non-revealed psyche frequency causes > damage, and since it is almost impossible to prove that a psyche occured > for the first time - I almost always rule that any psyche carries some > non-revealed frequency. "I may well believe you that it's the first > time, but there is the possibility that you knew that he might do it, so > the opponents are also entitled to know that he might do it". > > That's if you wanted to know about misinformation. > > If you want to know if the psyche is permitted, that's a different question. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ Missed any of the IPL matches ? Catch a recap of all the action on MSN Videos http://msnvideos.in/iplt20/msnvideoplayer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090731/c61ccb18/attachment.html