From henk at ripe.net Mon Jun 1 01:01:01 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: <200905312301.n4VN11pE007711@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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 1 06:26:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:26:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <930E297E-5C01-4B31-8294-1EDE02E8DA44@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: >>>I'll be happy to relay messages insults, jokes and so on Matthias Berghaus: >>Give him some insults from me :-) >>Seriously, please tell him that I believe he will get well, as long >>as he keeps his spirits up, that is important. >> >>Best wishes and regards >>Matthias Tony Musgrove: >Very belated antipodean wishes for a speedy recovery. >You want insults...I think he is the closest contributor to being a >real Aussie although he no doubt lumps us in with wogs, frogs, and >welsh. I always enjoy his "cut the crap" posts, and value his more >serious contributions. > >Regards, > >Tony (Sydney) Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Jane Austen & Seth Grahame-Smith: "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains." Richard Hills: It is a truth universally acknowledged that a MadDog in possession of England's traditionally warm beer must be in want of a warmer insult. My belated antipodean wishes for MadDog to have a speedy recovery are exceptionally late, not due to the dog eating my homework, but due to me just emerging from two weeks in hospital myself. As for my carefully crafted warm insult (revenge is a dish best eaten cold, but irony a la Jane Austen is much warmer)..... After finding it very difficult to keep breathing on Monday 18th May, I was treated for atrial fibrillation. This included being medicated with rat poison - Warfarin - which had the useful side effect of thinning my blood and preventing a stroke. I suspect that MadDog is also being treated like the Rat he really is, and is also imbibing Warfarin now instead of his preferred warm English beer. :-) 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 lapinjatka at jldata.fi Mon Jun 1 12:08:33 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:08:33 +0300 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <004901c9e1f5$a49057d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004901c9e1f5$a49057d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A23A8A1.4080804@jldata.fi> Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "Nothing is more dangerous than an idea > when it is the only idea we have." > [Alain, 'Libres proposes'] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gampas at aol.com > To: blml at rtflb.org > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 1:25 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > > N E S W > 1D P 1NT 2H > P 3D(1) P 3H(2) > P 4H > (1) showing 10+ points and heart support > (2) Standard Hesitation. NS said it was long, EW > agreed there was a hesitation. Later W argued > that he "had his hesitation", probably missing > the point > . > East had: > Kxx > 108xxx > AJ10x > K > > Do we have the vulnerability and form of scoring, > please, for the above deal, as I would like to put > it on one or two other forums? > > +=+ I think you are missing crucial information to > make the enquiry because the Director did not > establish the meaning, for the partnership in question, > of the sequence through 3D followed by 4H. If we > knew what the difference was between this and a > simple raise to 4H (such as I would have chosen on > the hand in question, as would other subscribers > here) we would be in a position to judge whether he > has the hand for it. If he does not have the hand for it > then he is stuck with what the meaning of the 3D bid > was on the hand he has. If, as seems likely, this is a > method of asking partner whether he has the hand to > bid game opposite a 10-11 count then he has no case > to bid 4H after partner's hesitation. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > No case, Huhhuh. This really is not 10-11 count hand. If he rules has not changed lately, there is some bonus to bid game. I think 4 conditions must be true for passing could be LA. West's overcall definitely denies values of opening hand ( all those hands doubles first) East is very conservative player. East-West is nonful. The game is Matchpoints. If par is using, as stated, cuebid to show invitational plus hands ( 3D=10+ points), it is very normal first to bid 3 dia, in case pard has some distributional maximum for slam, and same time tell pard, that it is our deal. Direct jump to 4 hearts is definitely at least sign-off. I polled some Finnish players, some experts, some not, but all played a lot. Same answer from all. What is the problem, no slamm after 3 hearts, all bid 4 hearts. Best regards Juuso > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 1 22:42:11 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 21:42:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <004901c9e1f5$a49057d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A23A8A1.4080804@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <001701c9e2f9$721e4410$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > I polled some Finnish players, some experts, some not, > but all played a lot. Same answer from all. What is the > problem, no slamm after 3 hearts, all bid 4 hearts. > +=+, If the partnership method is the one they are assigning to it. This we do not know. The one I have postulated is equally possible. Or maybe even other understandings. A competent AC would look for evidence other than the players' say-so. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 2 01:15:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:15:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003f01c9e16d$5d8e46e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: What the Governor of North Carolina said to the Governor of South Carolina (as reported in The New York Times, July 8, 1897): "I say, Governor, that it's a long time between drinks." Grattan Endicott asserted: >+=+ And I agree that there needs to be evidence independently of >self-report; in the absence of it we are very much in territory of >"The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >offending side" and "the weight of the evidence he is able to >collect". [84D and 85A]. [big snip] Law 73D1 (third sentence) quibbles: "Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction." Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion, we are very much Not in the territory of Law 84D, since the question being debated is whether or not an infraction has been committed, hence whether or not there are Two non- offending sides. In my opinion, the only relevant territories are the Law 85A "weight of the evidence he is able to collect" about the Law 16B1(b) "methods of the partnership". 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 Jun 2 02:00:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:00:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: >One of my choices is always to split the score, in this case giving >EW +650 and NS -200. This makes NS happy. (They get a top.) It >doesn't upset EW at all. So it is a "feel-good" ruling. > >It isn't prohibited by the laws. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: It is prohibited by the Aristotelian law of the excluded middle, "A" or "not-A". If East-West have committed a Law 16 infraction - "A" - then the score should be adjusted to EW +200 and NS -200. If East-West have not committed a Law 16 infraction - "not-A" - then the table score is retained as EW +650 and NS -650. What's the problem? The problem is that Robert's splitting of the score means that Bob is asserting two contradictory notions are simultaneously true; Law 16 has been infracted and also Law 16 has not been infracted. 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 axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 2 02:03:36 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 19:03:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 18:15 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > What the Governor of North Carolina said to the Governor of South > Carolina (as reported in The New York Times, July 8, 1897): > > "I say, Governor, that it's a long time between drinks." > > Grattan Endicott asserted: > >>+=+ And I agree that there needs to be I find myself a bit unsettled. In my eyes such an assertion is argumentative >>evidence independently of self-report; I do think that it is comforting to have independent corroboration, but to consider it necessary to have such corroboration leads to >> in the absence of it we are very much in territory of >>"The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >>offending side" invoking some rule of law** that takes away a player's valid defense merely because he has been accused. ** having been spurred to action after watching The Wilson Boy on TCM last night, the themes being similar. regards roger pewick >>and "the weight of the evidence he is able to >>collect". [84D and 85A]. > [big snip] > > Law 73D1 (third sentence) quibbles: > > "Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a > call or play is made is not in itself an infraction." > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > In my opinion, we are very much Not in the territory of Law 84D, > since the question being debated is whether or not an infraction > has been committed, hence whether or not there are Two non- > offending sides. > > In my opinion, the only relevant territories are the Law 85A > "weight of the evidence he is able to collect" about the Law > 16B1(b) "methods of the partnership". > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 2 02:44:13 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:44:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>...in the absence of it we are very much in territory of >>"The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- >>offending side"... Roger Pewick: >invoking some rule of law** that takes away a player's valid >defense merely because he has been accused. > >** having been spurred to action after watching The Winslow >Boy on TCM last night, the themes being similar. The Winslow Boy (1999 film, based on the 1946 play by Terence Rattigan): Sir Robert Morton: "I wept today because right had been done." Catherine Winslow: "Not justice?" Sir Robert Morton: "No, not justice. Right. Easy to do justice. Very hard to do right." Richard Hills: Many years ago gafiated blmler Peter Gill did Right to a bunny when Peter was a member of an Aussie AC. The bunny was so ashamed of her legal error of misbidding that she chose self- incriminatingly to assert that her partner had instead made the illegal error of misexplaining. Rather than routinely ruling an infraction due overwhelming self-incriminating evidence, Peter chose to follow up loose thread anomalies, and eventually Peter did Right by discovering that no infraction had occurred at all. If Peter Gill had instead routinely done Justice, much time would have been saved, but Right would not have been served. 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 Jun 2 07:07:18 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:07:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A16B276.2010801@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott asserted: >+=+ What is perhaps to be noted in the above is "because he >thinks the auction is already over". Herman De Wael asserted: >I don't believe there can be a single rule for picking up the >bidding cards. Law 18F: "Regulating Authorities may authorize different methods of making calls." Richard Hills quibbles: If the relevant Regulating Authority prescribes two simple rules for Passing, then attempting to Pass in a non-prescribed third way is an infraction of Law 18F, thus such a non- prescribed attempt means that no call has yet been made (although, of course, the failed attempt to call creates UI which may constrain partner's later choice amongst LAs). Grattan Endicott asserted: >If he picks up his cards because his intention is to pass, no >matter what the state of the auction, the statement that he >"gets to do whatever he wants without penalty" is no longer >applicable, or at very least not mandatory upon the Director. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Herman De Wael asserted >Rather, we need to find out what the intention was and stick >the taker-upper to that intention. WBF General Conditions of Contest 2009: "If a player whose pass will conclude the auction removes his bidding cards from the table he is deemed to have passed." Richard Hills quibbles: Okay, so the WBF defines two simple rules for Passing: (a) using the green Pass card for most Passes, and (b) optionally picking up one's bidding cards for a third (or fourth) consecutive Pass. Note that the WBF does _not_ define picking up of bid cards as a Pass by a player who _erroneously_ believed that they were concluding the auction. Ergo, I believe that both Grattan Endicott and also Herman De Wael have erred in their joint misinterpretation of Law 18F. So if I was a WBF TD, I would rule that such an erroneous taker-upper had, irregardless of their intent, not yet validly called. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 2 08:22:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:22:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] your opinions, again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A15D3B9.3080808@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >Team, both sides not vul. > >You hold the following hand: > >8 >A9862 >72 >AKQ87 > >The bidding: S W N E > 1cl 1he 3di* 3he > Pass**4he 5di Pass > Pass ? > > *=alert **South says 3di was weak. (Explanation: The >tournament was in Germany but South spoke little German. The >opponents requested that she speak no English (or other language) >during the auction or play. Richard Hills; Were the opponents bilingual, fluent in both German and English? That is, were they Secretary Birds, exploiting the local regulations with a view to coffee-housing South? While some might think the above questions irrelevant, in my opinion assessments of players' characters affect Law 85A1 "weight of the evidence [the Director] is able to collect". Jeff Easterson: >She said the 3di bid showed diamonds (in some situations it was used >as a relay or transfer and she suspected that this was the essential >information for the opponents) and East bid 3he immediately before >she could continue with the explanation. She searched for the German >word for weak and when she found it (after her RHO had bid 3he she >said that 3di was weak. > >Question 1: what do you call as West? Richard Hills: I use an idea popularised by the late great ch**t Terence Reese. In a competitive or potentially competitive auction my partnership agreement is that a new suit at the four-level is not a slam try, but rather merely showing game values with 5/5 shape, transferring captaincy to partner. Pard can then sensibly decide whether to Pass, Double or Bid if the opponents soldier on to 5D. So my partnership agreement makes 4C, not 4H, an automatic call by West on the previous round. As for the actual bidding problem, this shows why Terence Reese was not just a great observer of fingers, but also a great analyst. Failure to make a descriptive 4C call previously means that West is now endplayed in the auction, with a Pass or a bid of 5H now a complete 50/50 guess. Jeff Easterson: >Question 2: if the opponents subsequently correct the explanation and >say that 3di. was invitational (at the table it was legal to do so) >do you change your call? > >At the table West doubled and that was passed out. Now North >corrected the explanation. East chose not to retract his final pass. >West claimed, after play, that had he had the correct information he >would not have doubled. > >Question 3: Do you let the score stand or scratch the double? Richard Hills: In my opinion, West has exactly the wrong sort of hand for a -550 wild or gambling double of 5D. While (in another thread) I noted that split scores which give both sides the best of it are often unLawful, split scores which give both sides the worst of it are often Lawful. Law 12C1(b): "If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." 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 Jun 2 08:53:14 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:53:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007701c9d92e$17f33e70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Compact Oxford English Dictionary: floccinaucinihilipilification /floksinawsinihilipillifikaysh?n/ noun the action or habit of estimating something as worthless. ORIGIN from Latin flocci, nauci, nihili, pili (words meaning "at little value"). Grattan Endicott: >+=+ During the 19th May meeting Max Bavin said something >to the effect that the Director should allow a substitution >if he foresees no real likelihood of being obliged to resort >to Law 27D. > >However, if he sees a serious possibility that he might have >to invoke 27D he should not allow the substitute call without >penalty. > >These are my words not his and possibly misrepresent his >intended meaning. However, I think there is a serious point >involved that perhaps I should invite the WBFLC to support. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sven Pran asserted: >>Stayman usually implies an invitation to game and thus >>"promises" 25 HCP within the partnership if opener has a >>maximum. Grattan Endicott refuted: >>> I have a difficulty of philosophy here since my >>>Stayman responses never did guarantee values that >>>might be interested in game, whatever the range of >>>the 1NT. So perhaps I do not fully understand the >>>inferences and implications of a different approach. >>> On the other hand the point should be made that >>>when the use of Stayman implies nothing as to point >>>count for the partnership then, if the argument is as >>>you suggest, the basis on which the EBU rejected >>>the example does not exist. In that case the decision >>>needs qualification and is conditional on the nature >>>of the partnership understanding. >>>........................................................... >>> >>>It seems to me that my EBU colleagues' attitude was >>>blinkered by an assumption that there is only one way >>>to play the Stayman response to a weak 1NT opener. >>> ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills notes: Yes, contrary to Sven's and the EBU LC's belief, there are multiple ways to play the Stayman convention (some of which promise values, others of which do not). Indeed, before transfers rendered it obsolete, Double- Barrelled Stayman both promised and also denied values, depending upon whether responder initiated Stayman with a 2D strong barrel or a 2C weak barrel.(a fossilised relic of Double-Barrelled Stayman can be located in the Law 75 indicative example). Is an Alcatraz Coup a hold-up play with a Double-Barrelled Stayman??? :-) 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 gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Jun 2 10:03:39 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:03:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <168FB815-428B-4281-9A6F-A2F93790D36A@btinternet.com> On 2 Jun 2009, at 07:53, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Yes, contrary to Sven's and the EBU LC's belief, there are > multiple ways to play the Stayman convention (some of which > promise values, others of which do not). Yes, but even with those that don't, it's not usual to respond 2C with a balanced 5-count and only one four-card major. So, if someone makes an insufficient 2C having imagined that the opening was 1NT, allowing a correction to 3C would also allow opener to know of extra values in a sequence such as 2NT-3C; 3S-3NT. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jun 2 10:10:27 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:10:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: your opinions, again] Message-ID: <4A24DE73.3040108@aol.com> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: [BLML] your opinions, again Datum: Fri, 22 May 2009 00:20:41 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson Antwort an: Bridge Laws Mailing List An: Bridge Laws Mailing List Team, both sides not vul. You hold the following hand: 8 A9862 72 AKQ87 The bidding: S W N E 1cl 1he 3di* 3he Pass**4he 5di Pass Pass ? *=alert **South says 3di was weak. (Explanation: The tournament was in Germany but South spoke little German. The opponents requested that she speak no English (or other language) during the auction or play. She said the 3di bid showed diamonds (in some situations it was used as a relay or transfer and she suspected that this was the essential information for the opponents) and East passed immediately before she could continue with the explanation. She searched for the German word for weak and when she found it (after her LHO had bid 3he she said that 3di was weak. Question 1: what do you call as West? Question 2: if the opponents subsequently correct the explanation and say that 3di. was invitational (at the table it was legal to do so) do you change your call? At the table West doubled and that was passed out. Now North corrected the explanation. East chose not to retract his final pass. West claimed, after play, that had he had the correct information he would not have doubled. Question 3: Do you let the score stand or scratch the double? Ciao, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 2 10:15:44 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:15:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <002d01c9e116$e4402930$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> <4A20DB99.4040909@ulb.ac.be> <002d01c9e116$e4402930$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A24DFB0.8080503@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > > > +=+ The problem is that several responses in this thread display > what I term the 'blinkered' approach. This assumes that partnership > methods do not differ in the auction under examination. But as Law > 16B1(b) requires the Director must always look for possibilities > that a partnership under scrutiny differs in method from the general > run of players in the room. > When Directors consult players about judgemental matters > they do not want to know what a player they consult would bid on > the hand; they want to know what the player would bid *using the > methods of the partnership in question*. > If this EW pair play that 3D is invitational and partner then > makes the decision whether to bid 3H or 4H there is no way in > which East will be allowed to lift 3H to 4H after West has made > his bid with manifest uncertainty. AG : absolutely right. However, I'm asked to use every possible evidence about their methods, and the fact that East has bid 3D with an obvious game-going hand was a strong indication that the 3D bid wans't a specifric game try. Other cases (most notably with Bergen raises, which show a specific range) will go your way, of course. Best regard Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 2 10:39:35 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:39:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <168FB815-428B-4281-9A6F-A2F93790D36A@btinternet.com> References: <168FB815-428B-4281-9A6F-A2F93790D36A@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4A24E547.20703@ulb.ac.be> Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > On 2 Jun 2009, at 07:53, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Yes, contrary to Sven's and the EBU LC's belief, there are >> multiple ways to play the Stayman convention (some of which >> promise values, others of which do not). >> > > Yes, but even with those that don't, it's not usual to respond 2C > with a balanced 5-count and only one four-card major. > > So, if someone makes an insufficient 2C having imagined that the > opening was 1NT, allowing a correction to 3C would also allow opener > to know of extra values in a sequence such as 2NT-3C; 3S-3NT. > AG : sure. And what help would it be to him ? Of course, if he bids again over 3NT, that's using UI, but it won't happen. And that's why, in marginal cases, I prefer to let the bidding go and use L16 if needed. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 2 10:49:48 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:49:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: your opinions, again] In-Reply-To: <4A24DE73.3040108@aol.com> References: <4A24DE73.3040108@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A24E7AC.3060300@ulb.ac.be> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: [BLML] your opinions, again > Datum: Fri, 22 May 2009 00:20:41 +0200 > Von: Jeff Easterson > Antwort an: Bridge Laws Mailing List > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > Team, both sides not vul. > > You hold the following hand: > > 8 > A9862 > 72 > AKQ87 > > The bidding: S W N E > 1cl 1he 3di* 3he > Pass**4he 5di Pass > Pass ? > > *=alert **South says 3di was weak. (Explanation: The > tournament was in Germany but South spoke little German. The opponents > requested that she speak no English (or other language) during the > auction or play. She said the 3di bid showed diamonds (in some > situations it was used as a relay or transfer and she suspected that > this was the essential information for the opponents) and East passed > immediately before she could continue with the explanation. She > searched for the German word for weak and when she found it (after her > LHO had bid 3he she said that 3di was weak. > Question 1: what do you call as West? > Question 2: if the opponents subsequently correct the explanation and > say that 3di. was invitational (at the table it was legal to do so) do > you change your call? > > At the table West doubled and that was passed out. Now North corrected > the explanation. East chose not to retract his final pass. > West claimed, after play, that had he had the correct information he > would not have doubled. > Question 3: Do you let the score stand or scratch the double? > AG : if the explanation had happened before the 3H bid, I'd be prone to coirrect the score, because the meaning of the 3H bid could have been affected. Here, I don't see what is changed by the explanation. If 3D is weak, I expect their hands to be about : AKJx xxx xxxx x AKJx Qxxxxx x Jxx If 3D is invitational, and given the undisciplined 5D bid, they could be : AJxx KQx xxxx x AKxx QJxxxx x Jxx What does it change to West's decisions ? Best regards Alain From henk at ripe.net Tue Jun 2 11:06:29 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:06:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <200906020906.n5296TBE019251@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for May 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 56 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 52 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 31 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 29 ehaa (at) starpower.net 28 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 22 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 20 svenpran (at) online.no 12 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 12 john (at) asimere.com 11 tedying (at) yahoo.com 10 adam (at) irvine.com 7 lapinjatka (at) jldata.fi 6 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 6 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 6 karel (at) esatclear.ie 6 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 5 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 5 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 4 swillner (at) nhcc.net 4 jrhind (at) therock.bm 4 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 4 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 3 wrgptfan (at) gmail.com 3 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 3 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 3 james (at) kineticmind.com 3 henk (at) ripe.net 3 geller (at) nifty.com 3 blml (at) arcor.de 3 Gampas (at) aol.com 2 taigabridge (at) hotmail.com 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 2 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 2 craigstamps (at) comcast.net 2 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 2 Arbhuston (at) aol.com 1 zecurado (at) gmail.com 1 wmevius (at) hotmail.com 1 vitoldbr (at) yandex.ru 1 schoderb (at) msn.com 1 rgtjbos (at) xs4all.nl 1 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 1 nbpfemu (at) bigpond.com 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 1 hans-olof.hallen (at) bolina.hsb.se 1 gampas (at) aol.com From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Jun 2 15:57:53 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:57:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A24E547.20703@ulb.ac.be> References: <168FB815-428B-4281-9A6F-A2F93790D36A@btinternet.com> <4A24E547.20703@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 2 Jun 2009, at 09:39, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : >> On 2 Jun 2009, at 07:53, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> Yes, contrary to Sven's and the EBU LC's belief, there are >>> multiple ways to play the Stayman convention (some of which >>> promise values, others of which do not). >>> >> >> Yes, but even with those that don't, it's not usual to respond 2C >> with a balanced 5-count and only one four-card major. >> >> So, if someone makes an insufficient 2C having imagined that the >> opening was 1NT, allowing a correction to 3C would also allow opener >> to know of extra values in a sequence such as 2NT-3C; 3S-3NT. >> > AG : sure. And what help would it be to him ? I don't think there's a proviso in L27B1(b) to say "unless we think the additional information won't be of any help". The argument was presented that because Stayman can be used on a variety of hands, some weak some strong, a corrected insufficient Stayman has the same meaning a sufficient Stayman bid. If we follow the recommended practice of asking ?Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?? we'll see that's not the case. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 2 18:27:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 17:27:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> <4A20DB99.4040909@ulb.ac.be><002d01c9e116$e4402930$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A24DFB0.8080503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001101c9e39f$0288ba30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling However, I'm asked to use every possible evidence about their methods, and the fact that East has bid 3D with an obvious game-going hand was a strong indication that the 3D bid wans't a specifric game try. < +=+ What we were told is that rhis is the minimum the 3D bid shows. We were not told how they use he bid nor what a direct 4H would show. And we do not know that the player in question judged this to be a game going hand when he made the bid - it did improve of course after partner's hesitation. ~ G ~ +=+ From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 2 18:42:17 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:42:17 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 30 May 2009 12:07:55 BST." <002d01c9e116$e4402930$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > If this EW pair play that 3D is invitational and partner then > makes the decision whether to bid 3H or 4H there is no way in > which East will be allowed to lift 3H to 4H after West has made > his bid with manifest uncertainty. The hesitation kills that option. I don't accept that, for this reason: Since I (like most of the other posters here) am certain that the East hand is worth a raise to game as soon as he hears the 2H overcall, then I'd assume that a 3D bid that shows an invitational hand and denies a game-going hand is a misbid. It could be an intentional misbid, perhaps to hear how partner responds to an invitation before deciding whether to try for slam; or perhaps East had an honor hidden or simply forgot the system. But whatever the possible explanations for the misbid are, I just don't think that East's LAs depend at all on the meaning of 3D in their system. If East was the sort who might underestimate the value of his hand and consider this only invitational, then I suppose the answer is to use Walruses who would make similar underestimations as the "class of players" when applying L16B1(b)---and then maybe passing is an LA for those players. Which means that Grattan is right, sort of. But that isn't quite the same thing as saying that the meaning of 3D should directly affect which calls are LAs. Let me put it another way. L16B1(b) requires that we determine what players in the same class "using the methods of the partnership" would have done. Suppose the director gives the hand to players of *my* class, or that of most of the posters here. The director stipulates that we are playing methods in which 3D is invitational and denies values for game, then gives us the auction and asks what calls we would consider making over 3H. None of us would be able to answer the question, since none of us would have ever bid only 3D in the first place, under those conditions. I suppose that, as Grattan said, we do need to examine the methods of the players in question. But we also need to find out why the 3D bidder bid that. If 3D is invitational-only in their system but the 3D player misbid for whatever reason, then the partnership agreements about 3D shouldn't have an impact on what we determine the LAs to be. -- Adam From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Jun 3 01:25:17 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:25:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4A25B4DD.4030108@talktalk.net> [Adam Beneschan] I suppose that, as Grattan said, we do need to examine the methods of the players in question. But we also need to find out why the 3D bidder bid that. If 3D is invitational-only in their system but the 3D player misbid for whatever reason, then the partnership agreements about 3D shouldn't have an impact on what we determine the LAs to be. [Nigel] I think this case was at club level. Robert appears to know the players involved but he interrogated them further about their methods. At my club, some pairs wouldn't know the answers to questions posed by BLMLers. Robert seems to have spent more time and effort than normal, in investigating the facts. To establish what were logical alternatives, he then polled some of the player's peers. That the average BLMler is a more expert bidder is of questionable significance. Robert seems to have has told us everything relevant that he was able to divulge. Thence, he came to a reasoned judgement, acceptable to the players. I feel that: - A director must sometimes act on incomplete information, if he is to arrive at useful judgement decisions, in real time. - In any case, we have to assume that we've been told all available relevant facts, when presented with a case on BLML. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 3 08:20:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:20:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >In any case, we have to assume that we've been told all available >relevant facts, when presented with a case on BLML. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ When the players already know the purpose in taking a player >away from the table (e.g. in some Law 27 situations) the practice >may be essential and is then acceptable. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Canberra Bridge Club Knockout Teams, first stanza Dlr: East Vul: Both South holds: A5 Q972 A542 QT7 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali --- --- Pass 1NT(1) Pass 2C (2) Pass 2C (3) (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 6-card minor, denies a 5-card major, denies 2 doubletons. (2) Simple (single-barrelled) Stayman. Permitted responses: (a) 2D = denies a 4-card major (b) 2H = promises 4 hearts, does not deny 4 spades (c) 2S = promises 4 spades, denies 4 hearts (3) North-South have formed a very regular partnership for two millennia, with their simple Symmetric Relay bidding system (notes emailed on request) 99% unchanged for half-a-dozen years; responses to Stayman 100% unchanged. North drew attention to South's irregularity and summoned the Director due to North having a childlike glee in posing problems for Australia's Chief Director, Sean Mullamphy. What ruling would you make? What other rulings would you consider making? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 3 08:56:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:56:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com> <4A25B4DD.4030108@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <001001c9e418$70a80f60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > [Adam Beneschan] > I suppose that, as Grattan said, we do need to examine the methods of > the players in question. But we also need to find out why the 3D > bidder bid that. If 3D is invitational-only in their system but the > 3D player misbid for whatever reason, then the partnership agreements > about 3D shouldn't have an impact on what we determine the LAs to be. > > > [Nigel] > I think this case was at club level. Robert appears to know the players involved but he interrogated them further about their methods. At my club, some pairs wouldn't know the answers to questions posed by BLMLers. Robert seems to have spent more time and effort than normal, in investigating the facts. > > To establish what were logical alternatives, he then polled some of the player's peers. That the average BLMler is a more expert bidder is of questionable significance. Robert seems to have has told us everything relevant that he was able to divulge. Thence, he came to a reasoned judgement, acceptable to the players. > > I feel that: > - A director must sometimes act on incomplete information, if he is to > arrive at useful judgement decisions, in real time. > - In any case, we have to assume that we've been told all available > relevant facts, when presented with a case on BLML. > +=+ The question in this case is what was in the player's mind when he bid 3D. Does the method allow that 3H may be passed? When he made the bid, was it his judgement that the hand could be passed out in 3H? The question is not whether the hand was worth game all the time, as we all believe it was, but what the player judged it to be and whether he changed that judgement after partner hesitated. Since this is the minimum point count, we are told, upon which the 3D may be bid, the possibility exists that the player was thinking in that way. Just because we all think the hand worth 4H from the start it does not follow that he did and we must not substitute our judgement for his. I have not noticed that these questions were explored before the ruling was given. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 3 09:11:09 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:11:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A26220D.4030208@skynet.be> I ask Ali (away from the table if he has not yet explained to the table what has happened, what has happened. I believe there can be no other response than a mispull. I then rule according to L25. Please make the bid you wanted to. If the response is something else, please tell me. Herman. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > >> In any case, we have to assume that we've been told all available >> relevant facts, when presented with a case on BLML. > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ When the players already know the purpose in taking a player >> away from the table (e.g. in some Law 27 situations) the practice >> may be essential and is then acceptable. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Canberra Bridge Club > Knockout Teams, first stanza > > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > South holds: > > A5 > Q972 > A542 > QT7 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali > --- --- Pass 1NT(1) > Pass 2C (2) Pass 2C > (3) > > (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 6-card minor, denies a 5-card > major, denies 2 doubletons. > > (2) Simple (single-barrelled) Stayman. Permitted responses: > > (a) 2D = denies a 4-card major > (b) 2H = promises 4 hearts, does not deny 4 spades > (c) 2S = promises 4 spades, denies 4 hearts > > (3) North-South have formed a very regular partnership for two > millennia, with their simple Symmetric Relay bidding system > (notes emailed on request) 99% unchanged for half-a-dozen > years; responses to Stayman 100% unchanged. North drew > attention to South's irregularity and summoned the Director > due to North having a childlike glee in posing problems for > Australia's Chief Director, Sean Mullamphy. > > What ruling would you make? > What other rulings would you consider making? > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Jun 3 11:13:11 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:13:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200906030913.n539DGHR028895@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> >Richard: > >Canberra Bridge Club >Knockout Teams, first stanza > >Dlr: East >Vul: Both > >South holds: > >A5 >Q972 >A542 >QT7 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali >--- --- Pass 1NT(1) >Pass 2C (2) Pass 2C > (3) > >(1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 6-card minor, denies a 5-card > major, denies 2 doubletons. > >(2) Simple (single-barrelled) Stayman. Permitted responses: > > (a) 2D = denies a 4-card major > (b) 2H = promises 4 hearts, does not deny 4 spades > (c) 2S = promises 4 spades, denies 4 hearts > >(3) North-South have formed a very regular partnership for two > millennia, with their simple Symmetric Relay bidding system > (notes emailed on request) 99% unchanged for half-a-dozen > years; responses to Stayman 100% unchanged. North drew > attention to South's irregularity and summoned the Director > due to North having a childlike glee in posing problems for > Australia's Chief Director, Sean Mullamphy. > >What ruling would you make? >What other rulings would you consider making? There can be no more daunting director call than to Richard's table. a) Lets try an L25A mispull b) If not, at the table I will suggest that 3C can be made without penalty provided the IBer feels that he is providing the same or a more detailed description of his hand, and that is what he intended (spiel about the mop up provisions) I do not take offender away from the table. c) Otherwise, bid anything and partner is out Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 3 11:38:38 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:38:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A26449E.4060602@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Nigel Guthrie: > > >> In any case, we have to assume that we've been told all available >> relevant facts, when presented with a case on BLML. >> > > Grattan Endicott: > > >> +=+ When the players already know the purpose in taking a player >> away from the table (e.g. in some Law 27 situations) the practice >> may be essential and is then acceptable. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Canberra Bridge Club > Knockout Teams, first stanza > > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > South holds: > > A5 > Q972 > A542 > QT7 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali > --- --- Pass 1NT(1) > Pass 2C (2) Pass 2C > (3) > > (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 6-card minor, denies a 5-card > major, denies 2 doubletons. > > (2) Simple (single-barrelled) Stayman. Permitted responses: > > (a) 2D = denies a 4-card major > (b) 2H = promises 4 hearts, does not deny 4 spades > (c) 2S = promises 4 spades, denies 4 hearts > > (3) North-South have formed a very regular partnership for two > millennia, with their simple Symmetric Relay bidding system > (notes emailed on request) 99% unchanged for half-a-dozen > years; responses to Stayman 100% unchanged. North drew > attention to South's irregularity and summoned the Director > due to North having a childlike glee in posing problems for > Australia's Chief Director, Sean Mullamphy. > > What ruling would you make? > What other rulings would you consider making? > > AG : it seems obvious that there has been a mispull, especially as 3C doesn't exist in the pair's pattern of responses (and even if it does ...). The player can't think partner had opened 1C, or such similar event, because he himself bid 1NT. No player ever intended to bid 1NT, then 2C at his next turn, in the absence of competition. That's enough evidence for me. Apply L25 correspondingly and allow the player to make the response he intended to make. I suppose this isn't posing a big problem to Australia's Chief Director. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 3 14:31:23 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:31:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <001001c9e418$70a80f60$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com> <4A25B4DD.4030108@talktalk.net> <001001c9e418$70a80f60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:56:34 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "Nothing is more dangerous than an idea > when it is the only idea we have." > [Alain, 'Libres proposes'] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:25 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > >> [Adam Beneschan] >> I suppose that, as Grattan said, we do need to examine the methods of >> the players in question. But we also need to find out why the 3D >> bidder bid that. If 3D is invitational-only in their system but the >> 3D player misbid for whatever reason, then the partnership agreements >> about 3D shouldn't have an impact on what we determine the LAs to be. >> >> >> [Nigel] >> I think this case was at club level. Robert appears to know the players > involved but he interrogated them further about their methods. At my > club, > some pairs wouldn't know the answers to questions posed by BLMLers. > Robert seems to have spent more time and effort than normal, in > investigating > the facts. >> >> To establish what were logical alternatives, he then polled some of the > player's peers. That the average BLMler is a more expert bidder is of > questionable significance. Robert seems to have has told us everything > relevant that he was able to divulge. Thence, he came to a reasoned > judgement, > acceptable to the players. >> >> I feel that: >> - A director must sometimes act on incomplete information, if he is to >> arrive > at useful judgement decisions, in real time. >> - In any case, we have to assume that we've been told all available >> relevant facts, > when presented with a case on BLML. >> > +=+ The question in this case is what was in the player's mind when > he bid 3D. Does the method allow that 3H may be passed? When he > made the bid, was it his judgement that the hand could be passed > out in 3H? The question is not whether the hand was worth game all > the time, as we all believe it was, but what the player judged it to be > and whether he changed that judgement after partner hesitated. > Since this is the minimum point count, we are told, upon which > the 3D may be bid, the possibility exists that the player was thinking > in that way. Just because we all think the hand worth 4H from the > start it does not follow that he did and we must not substitute our > judgement for his. > I have not noticed that these questions were explored before the > ruling was given. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am not sure how to respond to this. It is extremely common here that a cue bid of the opponent's suit shows 10+ points with support, and that is what East reported. So this part is easy. But the rest of the relevant information seemed impossible to collect. It is critical how strong West would be for a 2H overcall in that position. But that isn't a part of the explicit partnership methods, so now we are getting into an area where any self-report by the players would be unreliable and suspect. I can now see that it is relevant what a straight jump to 4H shows. Why didn't he jump straight to 4H? Again, I have from the polls that everyone who was going to 4H got there by bidding it directly. I completely missed that point in my considerations. I had this blind spot because if I was going to 4H, I would first bid 3D. So it is relevant when this player jumps straight to 4H and when he does not. But that seems difficult to collect also. So to summarize, I think the director needs to know that explicit agreed-upon partnership agreements and that those should be a part of the poll. I think the rest kind of has to be thrown into the wind. I am not sure how Grattan means his words. But the words themselves don't ring right for me. "We must not substitute our judgment for his." Where in the laws does it say that his judgment is relevant to my ruling? I am pretty sure Grattan means to agree with me that if he intended to bid 4H all along, that should be completely irrelevant to the ruling. (It actually was probably relevant, I am just saying that legally it is not; and I always tell my players that it is irrelvant if they were always planning on making a bid whether or not partner hesitated.) From gampas at aol.com Wed Jun 3 14:46:59 2009 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:46:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com> [grattan] If East, having shown the heart fit with the 3D bid says that even opposite the sign-off 3H he was always intending to bid game, he must show beyond reasonable doubt that (a) these are the partnership methods, and (b) that he has the hand for it. In deciding about this the Director should adopt an attitude of scepticism and require to be fully convinced on both (a) and (b). [paul lamford] Herein lies the rub; you ask East what his intention was when bidding 3D, and he states that he was always intending to bid game, and his methods were that 3D was at least a raise to 3H (from what I can gather from the later postings by the OP). He is looking at a hand that is correctly a 3D bid, as slam is still possible, and you have already limited your hand by failing to bid over 1D; and even if you rule out slam on this "trash", then you should still show your defensive values in case they bid over 4H. You would have bid 4H instead; that is your choice; it was not his. One of the people surveyed at the club in question (a good player we are told) would just have bid 3H. Why should this player, who has already shown himself to be a competent player by using a UCB in the first place, be tarred with the same brush as that complete novice? You approach East's reply "with scepticism" whereas what you should be doing is deciding on the weight of evidence you are able to collec t, giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-offender. In the example no opponent called the director back after the agreed BIT, and South stated that East had his bid. You describe the postings on here on this topic as being a "blinkered approach". Perhaps you should reflect on the saying that people often find faults in others that are most prominent in themselves. Law 16B3 states: 3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender. In our example the opponents did not do such summoning, but the TD took it upon himself to return and adjust the score. The implication from 16B3, and from accepted practice, is that he does not do so unless summoned. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090603/46e296f6/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 3 14:49:15 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:49:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:20:50 -0400, wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > >> In any case, we have to assume that we've been told all available >> relevant facts, when presented with a case on BLML. > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ When the players already know the purpose in taking a player >> away from the table (e.g. in some Law 27 situations) the practice >> may be essential and is then acceptable. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Canberra Bridge Club > Knockout Teams, first stanza > > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > South holds: > > A5 > Q972 > A542 > QT7 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali > --- --- Pass 1NT(1) > Pass 2C (2) Pass 2C > (3) > > (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 6-card minor, denies a 5-card > major, denies 2 doubletons. > > (2) Simple (single-barrelled) Stayman. Permitted responses: > > (a) 2D = denies a 4-card major > (b) 2H = promises 4 hearts, does not deny 4 spades > (c) 2S = promises 4 spades, denies 4 hearts > > (3) North-South have formed a very regular partnership for two > millennia, with their simple Symmetric Relay bidding system > (notes emailed on request) 99% unchanged for half-a-dozen > years; responses to Stayman 100% unchanged. North drew > attention to South's irregularity and summoned the Director > due to North having a childlike glee in posing problems for > Australia's Chief Director, Sean Mullamphy. > > What ruling would you make? > What other rulings would you consider making? > > Neat problem, Richard. It looks like a mispull, and I wanted to take off your head for pointing it out to your partner. But you have the legal right to draw attention to an irregularity, and in this situation that doesn't seem unfair (in the sense of fairness that transcends the laws) or inconsistent with the general intent of the laws. So I give Ali the mispull. (Taking him aside, if he is not handicapped, so ask what he was intending with his 2C bid.) Hopefully he has already explained that it is a mispull before I ever reach the table. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 3 15:06:03 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:06:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com> <4A25B4DD.4030108@talktalk.net> <001001c9e418$70a80f60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A26753B.2060905@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > I am not sure how to respond to this. It is extremely common here that a > cue bid of the opponent's suit shows 10+ points with support, But it doesn't show the 4th trump, nor the 5th, nor all suits controlled. > and that is > what East reported. So this part is easy. But the rest of the relevant > information seemed impossible to collect. It is critical how strong West > would be for a 2H overcall in that position. AG: : not really critical. Look at how little is needed to make game. xx - KQxxxx - x - xxxx would be enough. > But that isn't a part of the > explicit partnership methods, so now we are getting into an area where any > self-report by the players would be unreliable and suspect. > > I can now see that it is relevant what a straight jump to 4H shows. Why > didn't he jump straight to 4H? Again, I have from the polls that everyone > who was going to 4H got there by bidding it directly. AG : absolutely irrelevant. The actual question is : do all who bid 3D continue to 4H over 3H ? > So to summarize, I think the director needs to know that explicit > agreed-upon partnership agreements and that those should be a part of the > poll. I think the rest kind of has to be thrown into the wind. > AG :yes, as someone mentioned, if the agreement is that 3D is explicitly limit (never heard that), then bidding 4H would be disallowed. If we believe that the player was always bidding 4H (and I do), the reason why he bid 3D is irrelevant. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 3 15:12:40 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:12:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4A2676C8.5040902@ulb.ac.be> gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [grattan] > If East, having shown the heart fit with the 3D bid says that even > opposite the sign-off 3H he was always intending to bid game, he must > show beyond reasonable doubt that (a) these are the partnership > methods, and (b) that he has the hand for it. In deciding about this > the Director should adopt an attitude of scepticism and require to be > fully convinced on both (a) and (b). > [paul lamford] > Herein lies the rub; you ask East what his intention was when bidding > 3D, and he states that he was always intending to bid game, and his > methods were that 3D was at least a raise to 3H (from what I can > gather from the later postings by the OP). He is looking at a hand > that is correctly a 3D bid, as slam is still possible, and you have > already limited your hand by failing to bid over 1D; and even if you > rule out slam on this "trash", then you should still show your > defensive values in case they bid over 4H. You would have bid 4H > instead; that is your choice; it was not his. AG : well said, Sir. > > Law 16B3 states: > 3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent > who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been > suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play > ends. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if > he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage > for the offender. > In our example the opponents did not do such summoning, but the TD > took it upon himself to return and adjust the score. The implication > from 16B3, and from accepted practice, is that he does not do so > unless summoned. AG : I could buy this, but doesn't it contradict L81C6 ? After all, there are many cases when the NOS don't realize the O. For example, the NOS might think the 4H was normal, hence not summon the TD back, but they might have been wrong in their evaluation. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 3 15:15:02 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:15:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A267756.9020502@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > > Neat problem, Richard. It looks like a mispull, and I wanted to take off > your head for pointing it out to your partner. But you have the legal > right to draw attention to an irregularity, and in this situation that > doesn't seem unfair AG : Ali didn't pause for thought. Only his partner did. > (in the sense of fairness that transcends the laws) or > inconsistent with the general intent of the laws. So I give Ali the > mispull. (Taking him aside, if he is not handicapped, so ask what he was > intending with his 2C bid.) AG : the response will probably be : "nothing. I didn't intend to bid 2C". From gampas at aol.com Wed Jun 3 16:00:03 2009 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:00:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <4A267756.9020502@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A267756.9020502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CBB26AB9CD4207-14E0-2519@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com> Menagerie Bridge Club Teams Pivot Final Dlr: East Vul: Both South holds: A5 Q972 A542 QT7 The bidding has gone: WEST????? NORTH???? EAST????? SOUTH ????????? The Hog???????????? The Rabbit ---?????? ---?????? Pass????? 1NT(1) Pass????? 2C (2)??? Pass????? 2C ???????????? (3) (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, but NT is not normally something the Rabbit is allowed to bid, except in an emergency. (2) Simple Stayman.? The Rabbit was not that familiar with the permitted responses, but generally they were: (a) 2D = denies a 4-card major (b) 2H = promises 4 hearts, does not deny 4 spades (c) 2S = promises 4 spades, denies 4 hearts (3) North-South have formed a very regular partnership for two millennia, playing the Hobbit system, which changes every hand depending on the seat occupied by the Rabbit. Basically the Hog is the only one who should open no-trumps, and the Rabbit plays transfers but the Hog doesn't. The system uses complex vulnerability and board number rules to get round the requirement that both players should use the same system; these often confuse the Rabbit who strays from time to time and opens 1NT. The Rabbit was still smarting from the previous board where he had raised the Hog's weak NT to slam (thinking it was a strong NT which he played with the Walrus) with AKx 10xx AQx Kxxx opposite 10xx AKx JTx QJT9. With the diamond finesse correct and QJ doubleton falling in both majors, the Hog made the obvious 12 tricks. The Secretary bird summoned the director in a boorish manner when the Rabbit bid 2C. The tufts of hair on his neck were bristling with rage from the previous board. The Owl arrived. Bringing the Rabbit away from the board, he established that he thought he was responding Stayman to 1NT; he was so used to the Hog opening 1NT that he somehow moved forward the 1NT - 2C sequence in what could loosely be described as his brain. The Owl ruffled through his Lawbook as the Secretary Bird craned his long neck to get a better look. The Owl ruled that the Rabbit's 2C was not incontrovertibly not artificial (the Owl loved double negatives) and the Rabbit could not think of another bid in response to Stayman that was also Stayman, and the Owl interrupted his thinking before he had given up trying. He was thus not permitted a 27B1 correction and was told that under 27B2 his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Showing a rare moment of perspicacity he tried 3NT, and dummy hit with xx AKJx KQJx Jxx. The Secretary bird led a top club and switched to a spade, but even the Rabbit could manage nine tricks. The Secretary Bird, of course, had AKxxx in clubs and was extremely unhappy that the inevitable club ruff against four hearts would have spelled defeat. "If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred," he recited verbatim. "Ah, but 27B1 was not applied", chipped in the Hog, "it was 27B2 that was applied in this case, so there is no adjustment. Just rub of the green as Bobby Wolff would say." "But what about 12A1", went on the SB: "1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." "Sorry", said the Owl, "the Laws did provide indemnity, 27B2 caused the Hog to be silenced. And if you do not think making the Rabbit select the final contract is indemnity, then I do not know what is." "Well what about Law 23", continued the SB, again reciting it perfectly: "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." "Your scraping the barrel, now, SB," replied the Owl. "When was the Rabbit ever aware of what day it was, let alone the fact that the irregularity could damage the NOS? No adjustment, now move on to the next board please. You have the right of appeal." ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090603/ef3dffa3/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 3 16:01:11 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:01:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <002d01c9e116$e4402930$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> <4A20DB99.4040909@ulb.ac.be> <002d01c9e116$e4402930$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On May 30, 2009, at 7:07 AM, Grattan wrote: > If this EW pair play that 3D is invitational and partner then > makes the decision whether to bid 3H or 4H there is no way in > which East will be allowed to lift 3H to 4H after West has made > his bid with manifest uncertainty. The hesitation kills that option. > East cannot now rethink his decision to make a bid that transfers > the choice of contract to his partner. This overlooks the fact that an "invitational" bid may be either "definitionally invitational" -- all further bidding is based on the bidder having invitational values -- or "presumptively invitational" -- partner responds initiallly on the assumption that the bidder has invitational values, and the bidder's subsequent action reveals whether he does in fact have that or something else. In standard bidding methods, any "invitational bid" which is forcing (e.g. a game try in a new suit) is presumptively invitational. Bidder may be planning to settle for game if partner declines the "invitation" but continue with a slam try if he accepts (or even perhaps only if he "super-accepts"). Hand evaluation is an inexact art, and one person's just barely not quite enough to bid game may be the next one's just barely enough to try for slam if partner shows interest. Just because East *presumptively* invited with 3D and then bid 4H over 3H after West showed manifest uncertainty doesn't necessarily mean that East has "re[thought] his decision". That's for the director to investigate and decide based on the evidence. That call can, obviously, be less than clear-cut. I have seen players in high-level competition behind screens make bids that are defined in their methods as "invitational" while simultaneously passing a note to their screenmate that says "I'm bidding at least game no matter what" just to protect themselves. I should add that confusion arising from failure to distinguish between agreements with "defintional meanings" and those with "presumptive meanings" are hardly limited to invitational bids. For a more subtle example, consider whether using Stayman shows definitional or merely presumptive interest in playing a major if partner has four of them, and how your entire structure of responses to 1NT depends on the answer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 3 16:44:41 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:44:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What makes us think something is an LA? In-Reply-To: <4A26753B.2060905@ulb.ac.be> References: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com> <4A25B4DD.4030108@talktalk.net> <001001c9e418$70a80f60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A26753B.2060905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:06:03 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> >> I am not sure how to respond to this. It is extremely common here that a >> cue bid of the opponent's suit shows 10+ points with support, > But it doesn't show the 4th trump, nor the 5th, nor all suits controlled. > >> and that is >> what East reported. So this part is easy. But the rest of the relevant >> information seemed impossible to collect. It is critical how strong West >> would be for a 2H overcall in that position. > AG: : not really critical. Look at how little is needed to make game. > xx - KQxxxx - x - xxxx would be enough. > > >> But that isn't a part of the >> explicit partnership methods, so now we are getting into an area where >> any >> self-report by the players would be unreliable and suspect. >> >> I can now see that it is relevant what a straight jump to 4H shows. Why >> didn't he jump straight to 4H? Again, I have from the polls that >> everyone >> who was going to 4H got there by bidding it directly. > AG : absolutely irrelevant. > The actual question is : do all who bid 3D continue to 4H over 3H ? > >> So to summarize, I think the director needs to know that explicit >> agreed-upon partnership agreements and that those should be a part of >> the >> poll. I think the rest kind of has to be thrown into the wind. >> > AG :yes, as someone mentioned, if the agreement is that 3D is explicitly > limit (never heard that), then bidding 4H would be disallowed. > > If we believe that the player was always bidding 4H (and I do), the > reason why he bid 3D is irrelevant. Let's suppose some UI situation. Without the UI, half of bridge players would never think of passing, 25% would think of passing but would not, and 25% would pass. By definition, doesn't that make pass an LA? (Change the numbers if not.) Now the ruling is appealed. By chance, 2 of the 3 committee members would never pass with that hand. What will the committee rule? Well, if the committee members say to themselves "I would never pass with that hand, therefore passing is not an LA", they will vote that pass is not an LA. So we are in the pardoxical situation that if the protesting player could know the true percentages in the population, that player could know that the protest was wrong and that it had a 50% chance of nonetheless succeeding. It's worse than that. Consider the committee member that would consider passing with that hand, AT THE TABLE, but would not actually pass. They will probably hear that 4S (or whatever) makes, and then they are asked if they would pass. In other words, they are being asked if they would make a wrong bid. It is a lot less likely that they will say that they would pass. And a lot more likely that they can be convinced that pass is not an LA. Of course, this assumes that people make the assumption that they can look at a hand and just because they would not make a bid, they assume the bid is not an LA. The point is, I don't see people working hard to avoid this assumption or complaining when other people do. As director, it is kind of unavoidable -- I look at a hand, a pass doesn't seem like an LA, so I am not going to take any poll. Or, as Paul suggested, the opponent in my example said that she thought 4H was obvious, therefore I maybe even shouldn't be investigating it. But I am thinking I need to be a little more careful. However, can't an appeals committee be pretty sure that at least one player has already been found who would pass? There was no judgment involved to go from my poll results to concluding that pass is an LA. The exact same argument holds for "pass is a bad bid and therefore is not an LA." That simply isn't in the rules. In this example, you can work out that passing 3H is not a good bid. But would the player have stopped to work that out if his partner had not hesitated? I mean, it could be that he was borderline between inviting and going to game, and his partner's hesitation convinced him that he wanted to be in game. And only then did he start working out what partner might have and whether or not game was a good chance. And again, if you working out what hands partner might have, your imaginations are likely to be influenced by already knowing the outcome. So, if I could know that pass was a bad bid, I am motivated to appeal even if I know that it is an LA. That's IF I think the committee will be swayed by the "It's a bad bid" argument. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 3 16:52:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:52:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com> <4A25B4DD.4030108@talktalk.net> <001001c9e418$70a80f60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:31 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:56:34 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > >> +=+ The question in this case is what was in the player's mind when >> he bid 3D. Does the method allow that 3H may be passed? When he >> made the bid, was it his judgement that the hand could be passed >> out in 3H? The question is not whether the hand was worth game all >> the time, as we all believe it was, but what the player judged it >> to be >> and whether he changed that judgement after partner hesitated. >> Since this is the minimum point count, we are told, upon which >> the 3D may be bid, the possibility exists that the player was >> thinking >> in that way. Just because we all think the hand worth 4H from the >> start it does not follow that he did and we must not substitute our >> judgement for his. >> I have not noticed that these questions were explored before >> the >> ruling was given. > > I am not sure how to respond to this. It is extremely common here > that a > cue bid of the opponent's suit shows 10+ points with support, and > that is > what East reported. So this part is easy. But the rest of the relevant > information seemed impossible to collect. It is critical how strong > West > would be for a 2H overcall in that position. But that isn't a part > of the > explicit partnership methods, so now we are getting into an area > where any > self-report by the players would be unreliable and suspect. > > I can now see that it is relevant what a straight jump to 4H shows. > Why > didn't he jump straight to 4H? Again, I have from the polls that > everyone > who was going to 4H got there by bidding it directly. I completely > missed > that point in my considerations. I had this blind spot because if I > was > going to 4H, I would first bid 3D. So it is relevant when this player > jumps straight to 4H and when he does not. But that seems difficult to > collect also. > > So to summarize, I think the director needs to know that explicit > agreed-upon partnership agreements and that those should be a part > of the > poll. I think the rest kind of has to be thrown into the wind. > > I am not sure how Grattan means his words. But the words themselves > don't > ring right for me. "We must not substitute our judgment for his." > Where in > the laws does it say that his judgment is relevant to my ruling? I am > pretty sure Grattan means to agree with me that if he intended to > bid 4H > all along, that should be completely irrelevant to the ruling. (It > actually was probably relevant, I am just saying that legally it is > not; > and I always tell my players that it is irrelvant if they were always > planning on making a bid whether or not partner hesitated.) I think that misinterprets Grattan's position. He has said that he would explicitly disallow 4H on the legal basis that "East cannot now rethink his decision". He may see nothing in the hand under discussion to suggest that East has done anything other than rethink his original decision, but I'm confident that if he were convinced to the contrary, he would allow 4H to stand. Grattan? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 3 17:04:05 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:04:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com> <4A25B4DD.4030108@talktalk.net> <001001c9e418$70a80f60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A2690E5.4030105@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > I think that misinterprets Grattan's position. He has said that he > would explicitly disallow 4H on the legal basis that "East cannot now > rethink his decision". AG : indeed. So, if East had intended to bid at least 4H, he may not rethink it. else, we come into 'hesitation using partner's ethics' zone. From gampas at aol.com Wed Jun 3 17:42:17 2009 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:42:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <4A267756.9020502@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A267756.9020502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CBB279025CF825-14E0-2C1B@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com> An attempt to compose in plain text with apologies if still wrong. Menagerie Bridge Club Teams Pivot Final Dlr: East Vul: Both South holds: A5 Q972 A542 QT7 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH The Hog The Rabbit --- --- Pass 1NT(1) Pass 2C (2) Pass 2C (3) (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, but NT is not normally something the Rabbit is allowed to bid, except in an emergency. (2) Simple Stayman. The Rabbit was not that familiar with the permitted responses, but generally they were: (a) 2D = denies a 4-card major (b) 2H = promises 4 hearts, does not deny 4 spades (c) 2S = promises 4 spades, denies 4 hearts (3) North-South have formed a very regular partnership for two millennia, playing the Hobbit system, which changes every hand depending on the seat occupied by the Rabbit. Basically the Hog is the only one who should open no-trumps, and the Rabbit plays transfers but the Hog doesn't. The system uses complex vulnerability and board number rules to get round the requirement that both players should use the same system; these often confuse the Rabbit who strays from time to time and opens 1NT. The Rabbit was still smarting from the previous board where he had raised the Hog's weak NT to slam (thinking it was a strong NT which he played with the Walrus) with AKx 10xx AQx Kxxx opposite 10xx AKx JTx QJT9. With the diamond finesse correct and QJ doubleton falling in both majors, the Hog made the obvious 12 tricks. The Secretary bird summoned the director in a boorish manner when the Rabbit bid 2C. The tufts of hair on his neck were bristling with rage from the previous board. The Owl arrived. Bringing the Rabbit away from the board, he established that he thought he was responding Stayman to 1NT; he was so used to the Hog opening 1NT that he somehow moved forward the 1NT - 2C sequence in what could loosely be described as his brain. The Owl ruffled through his Lawbook as the Secretary Bird craned his long neck to get a better look. The Owl ruled that the Rabbit's 2C was not incontrovertibly not artificial (the Owl loved double negatives) and the Rabbit could not think of another bid in response to Stayman that was also Stayman, and the Owl interrupted his thinking before he had given up trying. He was thus not permitted a 27B1 correction and was told that under 27B2 his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Showing a rare moment of perspicacity he tried 3NT, and dummy hit with xx AKJx KQJx Jxx. The Secretary bird led a top club and switched to a spade, but even the Rabbit could manage nine tricks. The Secretary Bird, of course, had AKxxx in clubs and was extremely unhappy that the inevitable club ruff against four hearts would have spelled defeat: "If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred," he recited verbatim. "Ah, but 27B1 was not applied", chipped in the Hog, "it was 27B2 that was applied in this case, so there is no adjustment. Just rub of the green as Bobby Wolff would say." "But what about 12A1", went on the SB: "1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." "Sorry", said the Owl, "the Laws did provide indemnity, 27B2 caused the Hog to be silenced. And if you do not think making the Rabbit select the final contract is indemnity, then I do not know what is." "Well what about Law 23", continued the SB, again reciting it perfectly: "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." "Your scraping the barrel, now, SB," replied the Owl. "When was the Rabbit ever aware of what day it was, let alone the fact that the irregularity could damage the NOS? No adjustment, now move on to the next board please. You have the right of appeal." ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 3 17:48:22 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:48:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <4A2690E5.4030105@ulb.ac.be> References: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com> <4A25B4DD.4030108@talktalk.net> <001001c9e418$70a80f60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2690E5.4030105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:04:05 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> I think that misinterprets Grattan's position. He has said that he >> would explicitly disallow 4H on the legal basis that "East cannot now >> rethink his decision". > AG : indeed. So, if East had intended to bid at least 4H, he may not > rethink it. else, we come into 'hesitation using partner's ethics' zone. I too agree. To elaborate, one form of evidence is that almost everyone would go to 4H with that hand. That's protected by the L16B laws, so we need not consider that. It seems instead that we are concerned with the situation where East sincerely says that he intended to go to 4H all along. (Also, going to 4H no matter what is an LA, hence East's claim is plausible). To restate, I am predicting that Grattan will say that East's intentions to go to 4H all along doesn't protect him from L16B adjustments, because that intention is irrelevant to the laws. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 3 17:56:25 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:56:25 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com><4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP><001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no><6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP><2CEA9E371B264D99B1BAE9F4CEC8003B@mamoslaptop> <000a01c9e043$ffed9240$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2E29638FA1604E91B6BF451E181F5DD3@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > > (Mike Amos) >> taking players away from the table during the play to ask >> questions >> about the auction is poor practice. > < > +=+ When the players already know the purpose in taking a player > away from the table (e.g. in some Law 27 situations) the practice > may > be essential and is then acceptable. > It is never accceptable in an MI case after it is too late for the NOS to change a call. We know the purpose, which is to trap the NOS into a self-damaging statement. I obey the command to come away from the table, but refuse to answer any questions. ACBL TDs are then likely to say there will be no redress in case of damage. When I ask for the law that says that, they in turn refuse to answer. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 3 18:07:06 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:07:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 In-Reply-To: <2E29638FA1604E91B6BF451E181F5DD3@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com><4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP><001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no><6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP><2CEA9E371B264D99B1BAE9F4CEC8003B@mamoslaptop> <000a01c9e043$ffed9240$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2E29638FA1604E91B6BF451E181F5DD3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4A269FAA.4010908@ulb.ac.be> Marvin L French a ?crit : > From: "Grattan" > > >> (Mike Amos) >> >>> taking players away from the table during the play to ask >>> questions >>> about the auction is poor practice. >>> >> < >> +=+ When the players already know the purpose in taking a player >> away from the table (e.g. in some Law 27 situations) the practice >> may >> be essential and is then acceptable. >> >> > > It is never accceptable in an MI case after it is too late for the > NOS to change a call. We know the purpose, which is to trap the NOS > into a self-damaging statement. AG : I always thought taking a player away from the table to know his intent was made for getting a non-UI-creating statement from the OS (example : what caused your IB ?) , rather than the NOS ? Anyway, if some ACBL or other directors do it otherwise, the blame should go to the TDs, not to TFLB. Best regards alain From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Jun 4 01:58:52 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:58:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net> [Robert Frick] If they are all happy, why make trouble? But it wasn't obvious to me that 4H is a clear bid, and NS seem inexperienced. So I ask a good player what he would bid with the East's hand. He would have just bid 3H. Not what I wanted to hear. I ask another relatively good player and she said she would bid 3D and pass 3H. I should have stopped asking people at this point -- I have pretty much established that not going to 4H is an LA. But I check one more good player, and he is firm that he would go straight to 4H. [Gampas] One of the people surveyed at the club in question (a good player we are told) would just have bid 3H. Why should this player, who has already shown himself to be a competent player by using a UCB in the first place, be tarred with the same brush as that complete novice? You approach East's reply "with scepticism" whereas what you should be doing is deciding on the weight of evidence you are able to collect, giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-offender. In the example no opponent called the director back after the agreed BIT, and South stated that East had his bid. [Nigel] In practice, the director must sometimes rule on *incomplete* facts. He should, however, take notice of the facts that he has *already gathered*. Here, Gampas is appalled that one of East's peers chose to bid 3H. Gampas makes no comment on the fact that another of East's peers chose to bid 3D and then to pass 3H. It was reasonable for Robert to judge the latter action to be a logical alternative. I feel that the director must take care not base his ruling on his own superior bidding expertise. From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Thu Jun 4 02:15:51 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 01:15:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 In-Reply-To: <2E29638FA1604E91B6BF451E181F5DD3@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com><4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP><001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no><6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP><2CEA9E371B264D99B1BAE9F4CEC8003B@mamoslaptop><000a01c9e043$ffed9240$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2E29638FA1604E91B6BF451E181F5DD3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L16B2-3 > > From: "Grattan" > >> (Mike Amos) >>> taking players away from the table during the play to ask >>> questions >>> about the auction is poor practice. >> < >> +=+ When the players already know the purpose in taking a player >> away from the table (e.g. in some Law 27 situations) the practice >> may >> be essential and is then acceptable. >> > > It is never accceptable in an MI case after it is too late for the > NOS to change a call. We know the purpose, which is to trap the NOS > into a self-damaging statement. I obey the command to come away from > the table, but refuse to answer any questions. ACBL TDs are then > likely to say there will be no redress in case of damage. When I ask > for the law that says that, they in turn refuse to answer. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Sorry my remark was not clear - I routinely do take players away in Law 27 cases - I intended but did not make clear to refer to the sort of MI situations Marvin was discussing. Mike From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 4 03:36:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 02:36:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com><4A25B4DD.4030108@talktalk.net><001001c9e418$70a80f60$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A2690E5.4030105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001601c9e4b4$e8a2cf40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling It seems instead that we are concerned with the situation where East sincerely says that he intended to go to 4H all along. (Also, going to 4H no matter what is an LA, hence East's claim is plausible). To restate, I am predicting that Grattan will say that East's intentions to go to 4H all along doesn't protect him from L16B adjustments, because that intention is irrelevant to the laws. < +=+ The Director will want to know whether the system allows East to stop in 3H. He will be interested in whether there is a history of the pair having stopped in part score on a similar sequence. He will be interested in any system file or system card disclosure of whether after the 3D bid he can stop is part score. If the 3D is forcing to game level then the player is in the clear. The partnership has merely judged to stay out of slam. We know that 10-11 HCP is the minimum high card values on which the 3D bid is made. This hand does have a fifth heart, it is true. However, if the player is not forced to game level, the question arises as to whether he judged to bid 3D to enquire whether to bid game or not. Is he now making a self-serving statement - "I was always going to bid at least game"? (Since he did not simply raise 2H to 4H the Director may well want to know what he claims he was doing. To what extent can doubt arise over his alleged intention - for example, as he may say, to explore mild slam interest?) The Director must put aside any personal belief that the player is crazy to judge that he might stop in part score. He will seek evidence on which to base an objective ruling. NS have questioned the 4H bid so there is no doubt we are in Law 84/Law 85 territory and dealing with UI from partner under Law 16B. The Director is looking for corroborative support for East's contention that whereas he may stop in part score on some similar hands, this hand is different. If he consults players the Director must find a delicate way of putting the question* to avoid superficial responses - he wants to know what proportion would not explore the possibility of slam as East claims he was doing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* I would perhaps avoid discussing what bid to make and simply ask for a judgement - "do you pass 2H, do you make a trial bid for partner to choose between 3 and 4 hearts, do you raise to game, or do you explore mild possibilities of a slam?"] From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 4 06:19:26 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:19:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2008 Boston non-NABC+ Three [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I disagree with the suggestion that this is a value >>judgement. The question is one of fact. The standard >>of proof required under Law 70C2 is high, indeed >>I would say absolute since minimal doubt establishes >>some degree of likelihood and the law says that the >>opponents *shall* then be awarded a trick or tricks. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Marvin French: >ACBL TDs would probably give a claimer all the tricks if >he was pulling trumps, saw that they were splitting, and >said, "The rest are mine," even with a trump still >outstanding. Richard Hills: Marv's general statement is too general. Earlier I quoted Kaplan's example whereby 7S in a 4-4 fit is cold provided that trumps do not break 5-0. Declarer wins the side suit lead with a side suit ace at trick one, plays one round of trumps at trick two, then claims without a statement. As a Kaplanesque TD I rule "contract made". But if, in identical circumstances, declarer draws two rounds of trumps at tricks two and three, then claims without a statement, as a Kaplanesque TD I differingly rule "contract not yet made". Now there is a reasonable doubt, caused by the unreasonable delay in claiming the 7S cold contract, that declarer has miscounted the opposing trumps (expecting a 2-2 break rather than the actual 3-2 break). Marvin French: >However, ACBL TDs seem to have an unstated guideline that >says the claimer must ruff low if he makes that statement >before ruffing. Richard Hills: The 1997 Lawbook was sufficiently ambiguous as to permit the ACBL powers-that-be the belief that they could create any regulation that they liked. But one of the features of the 2007 Lawbook is that it clearly delineates which Laws are immutable, and which Laws may be validly altered by a Regulating Authority. The ACBL definitely lacks the power to hamstring the Director's judgement by the ACBL choosing to alter the meaning of the Law 70C2 phrase "at all likely". Marvin French: >If the ruff is successful, trumps are assumed led from the >top. Richard Hills: Indeed, the only claim Law which the ACBL may alter is the trivial Law 70E2: "The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. 'from the top down') in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law)." TIME magazine book critic Lev Grossman (April 2nd 2009): "Has there ever been a work of literature that couldn't be improved by adding zombies? Seth Grahame-Smith is the author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, the premise of which explains itself: the Bennet family lives in a rural English village, where their primary concerns are a) marrying off their five daughters, and b) defending themselves against wave after wave of the remorseless, relentless walking dead." Richard Hills: Of course, while we are congratulating ourselves on the new improved Lawbook which prevents the ACBL powers-that-be changing immutable Laws, correspondence from another blmler revealed to me that many private bridge club owners in the ACBL-land have no compunction in their remorseless and relentless rewriting of Law 12 and Law 16 to keep all their zombie customers happy with wave after wave of unearned good scores. 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 Jun 4 09:03:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:03:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: >..... >I am working on a UI guide for both players and TDs. >..... >Suggestions would be welcome, > >Marv >Marvin L French >San Diego, CA >www.marvinfrench.com A few weeks ago I engaged Marv with extensive private correspondence about his UI guide, resulting in Marv unselfishly making major revisions. Perhaps Marv might elect to publish his current draft on blml, so that others can more easily make constructive suggestions (for example, Grattan Endicott might spot a nuance of Law, or David Burn might spot a dangling participle). Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jun 4 09:18:12 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:18:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <001601c9e4b4$e8a2cf40$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com><4A25B4DD.4030108@talktalk.net><001001c9e418$70a80f60$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A2690E5.4030105@ulb.ac.be> <001601c9e4b4$e8a2cf40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A277534.1010109@skynet.be> I really don't see what the fuss is about. Grattan says it very clearly: Grattan wrote: > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > [* I would perhaps avoid discussing what bid to make and > simply ask for a judgement - "do you pass 2H, do you make > a trial bid for partner to choose between 3 and 4 hearts, do > you raise to game, or do you explore mild possibilities of a > slam?"] > Is this really a hand where both the second and fourth options are possible? The player did not simply raise to game, so he was either unsure about it game or saw slam possibilities. If it's the former, then he musn't raise a slow 3H to 4H, if it's the latter, then raising to 4H must be allowed. Are you telling me it is unclear what this hand is worth? Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 4 09:17:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:17:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <168FB815-428B-4281-9A6F-A2F93790D36A@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Yes, contrary to Sven's and the EBU LC's belief, there are >>multiple ways to play the Stayman convention (some of which >>promise values, others of which do not). Gordon Rainsford: >Yes, but even with those that don't, it's not usual to >respond 2C with a balanced 5-count and only one four-card >major. Richard Hills: Not usual playing the usual strong 1NT partnership agreement. Very usual playing the unusual mini-NT partnership agreement. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT (1) Pass Pass X (2) (1) Mini (2) North unambiguously believes that South's X is penalty WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT (1) Pass 2C (2) X (3) (1) Mini (2) Stayman (3) North is ambiguously unsure whether South's X is: penalty, or lead-directing for clubs. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 4 10:33:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:33:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001f01c9e4ef$2b8198c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >..... (for example, Grattan Endicott might spot a > nuance of Law, or David Burn might spot > a dangling participle). > +=+ Or vice versa ! +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jun 4 10:36:34 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:36:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com> <4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <4A278792.4050002@aol.com> Allow me to take issue with the statement "if they are all happy, why make trouble?" This is/can be dangerous. Always give both sides a top, then they will be happy. We had,some years ago a TD in a European federation who almost always gave both pairs 60%. They were always happy. In most/many cases the other pairs don't realise what has happened and thus are not unhappy either. (If they see 60%/60% on the frequencies they assume that it was a correct decision.) Ciao, JE Nigel Guthrie schrieb: > [Robert Frick] > If they are all happy, why make trouble? But it wasn't obvious to me that 4H is a clear bid, and NS seem inexperienced. So I ask a good player what he would bid with the East's hand. He would have just bid 3H. Not what I wanted to hear. I ask another relatively good player and she said she would bid 3D and pass 3H. I should have stopped asking people at this point -- I have pretty much established that not going to 4H is an LA. But I check one more good player, and he is firm that he would go straight to 4H. > > [Gampas] > One of the people surveyed at the club in question (a good player we are > told) would just have bid 3H. Why should this player, who has already > shown himself to be a competent player by using a UCB in the first > place, be tarred with the same brush as that complete novice? You > approach East's reply "with scepticism" whereas what you should be doing > is deciding on the weight of evidence you are able to collect, giving > the benefit of the doubt to the non-offender. In the example no opponent > called the director back after the agreed BIT, and South stated that > East had his bid. > > [Nigel] > In practice, the director must sometimes rule on *incomplete* facts. He > should, however, take notice of the facts that he has *already > gathered*. Here, Gampas is appalled that one of East's peers chose to > bid 3H. Gampas makes no comment on the fact that another of East's peers > chose to bid 3D and then to pass 3H. It was reasonable for Robert to > judge the latter action to be a logical alternative. I feel that the > director must take care not base his ruling on his own superior bidding > expertise. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jun 4 10:51:32 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:51:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4 Jun 2009, at 08:17, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT (1) Pass 2C (2) X (3) > > (1) Mini > (2) Stayman > (3) North is ambiguously unsure whether South's X is: > > penalty, or > > lead-directing for clubs. Not for any NS pair who've got an agreement about it. And where do you think EW are going to go after INT-2C-2S when East has a 2-4-4-3 hand? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090604/47b18ad1/attachment-0001.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 4 12:29:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:29:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net> <4A278792.4050002@aol.com> Message-ID: <001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > Allow me to take issue with the statement "if they are > all happy, why make trouble?" This is/can be dangerous. > Always give both sides a top, then they will be happy. > We had,some years ago a TD in a European federation > who almost always gave both pairs 60%. They were > always happy. > In most/many cases the other pairs don't realise what > has happened and thus are not unhappy either. (If they > see 60%/60% on the frequencies they assume that it > was a correct decision.) Ciao, JE > > Nigel Guthrie schrieb: >> [Robert Frick] >> If they are all happy, why make trouble? But it wasn't >> obvious to me that 4H is a clear bid, and NS seem >> inexperienced. > > So I ask a good player what he would bid with the East's > hand. He would have just bid 3H. Not what I wanted to > hear. > > I ask another relatively good player and she said she would > bid 3D and pass 3H. I should have stopped asking people > at this point > > -- I have pretty much established that not going to 4H is > an LA. But I check one more good player, and he is firm > that he would go straight to 4H. >> >> [Gampas] >> One of the people surveyed at the club in question (a good player we are >> told) would just have bid 3H. Why should this player, who has already >> shown himself to be a competent player by using a UCB in the first >> place, be tarred with the same brush as that complete novice? You >> approach East's reply "with scepticism" whereas what you should be doing >> is deciding on the weight of evidence you are able to collect, giving >> the benefit of the doubt to the non-offender. In the example no opponent >> called the director back after the agreed BIT, and South stated that >> East had his bid. >> >> [Nigel] >> In practice, the director must sometimes rule on *incomplete* facts. He >> should, however, take notice of the facts that he has *already >> gathered*. Here, Gampas is appalled that one of East's peers chose to >> bid 3H. Gampas makes no comment on the fact that another of East's peers >> chose to bid 3D and then to pass 3H. It was reasonable for Robert to >> judge the latter action to be a logical alternative. I feel that the >> director must take care not base his ruling on his own superior bidding >> expertise. < +=+ I am not sure whether in the above the Director has picked up the fact that "I check one more good player, and he is firm that he would go straight to 4H" is another vote against any slam try and therefore adds to the case that to suggest it was such a try is self-serving. It is not support for a bid of 4H after a 3D try. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 4 12:45:24 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:45:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net> <4A278792.4050002@aol.com> <001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A27A5C4.2000201@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "Nothing is more dangerous than an idea > when it is the only idea we have." > [Alain, 'Libres proposes'] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:36 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > > >> Allow me to take issue with the statement "if they are >> all happy, why make trouble?" This is/can be dangerous. >> Always give both sides a top, then they will be happy. >> We had,some years ago a TD in a European federation >> who almost always gave both pairs 60%. They were >> always happy. >> In most/many cases the other pairs don't realise what >> has happened and thus are not unhappy either. (If they >> see 60%/60% on the frequencies they assume that it >> was a correct decision.) Ciao, JE >> >> Nigel Guthrie schrieb: >> >>> [Robert Frick] >>> If they are all happy, why make trouble? But it wasn't >>> obvious to me that 4H is a clear bid, and NS seem >>> inexperienced. >>> >> So I ask a good player what he would bid with the East's >> hand. He would have just bid 3H. Not what I wanted to >> hear. >> >> I ask another relatively good player and she said she would >> bid 3D and pass 3H. I should have stopped asking people >> at this point >> >> -- I have pretty much established that not going to 4H is >> an LA. But I check one more good player, and he is firm >> that he would go straight to 4H. >> >>> [Gampas] >>> One of the people surveyed at the club in question (a good player we are >>> told) would just have bid 3H. Why should this player, who has already >>> shown himself to be a competent player by using a UCB in the first >>> place, be tarred with the same brush as that complete novice? You >>> approach East's reply "with scepticism" whereas what you should be doing >>> is deciding on the weight of evidence you are able to collect, giving >>> the benefit of the doubt to the non-offender. In the example no opponent >>> called the director back after the agreed BIT, and South stated that >>> East had his bid. >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> In practice, the director must sometimes rule on *incomplete* facts. He >>> should, however, take notice of the facts that he has *already >>> gathered*. Here, Gampas is appalled that one of East's peers chose to >>> bid 3H. Gampas makes no comment on the fact that another of East's peers >>> chose to bid 3D and then to pass 3H. It was reasonable for Robert to >>> judge the latter action to be a logical alternative. I feel that the >>> director must take care not base his ruling on his own superior bidding >>> expertise. >>> > < > +=+ I am not sure whether in the above the Director > has picked up the fact that "I check one more good > player, and he is firm that he would go straight to 4H" > is another vote against any slam try and therefore > adds to the case that to suggest it was such a try is > self-serving. It is not support for a bid of 4H after a > 3D try. ~ G ~ +=+ > > __ AG : I'm sorry, you're on the wrong track : players who bid 4H directly should be discounted, because the answer to the question 'what do you do after having bid 3D' is irrelevant (ex falso quodlibet). You seem to consider only 3D 'limit' vs 3D 'limit or slam try', while the most probable is '3D showing a raise and defensive values, unlimited'. and this only the 3D bidders can tell. Noticez that this 3rd interpretation isn't falsified by the fact that any / some / many would bid a direct 4H. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 4 13:48:24 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:48:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net> <4A278792.4050002@aol.com><001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A27A5C4.2000201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002301c9e50a$60d49cf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "Nothing is more dangerous than an idea > when it is the only idea we have." > [Alain, 'Libres proposes'] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:36 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > > >> Allow me to take issue with the statement "if they are >> all happy, why make trouble?" This is/can be dangerous. >> Always give both sides a top, then they will be happy. >> We had,some years ago a TD in a European federation >> who almost always gave both pairs 60%. They were >> always happy. >> In most/many cases the other pairs don't realise what >> has happened and thus are not unhappy either. (If they >> see 60%/60% on the frequencies they assume that it >> was a correct decision.) Ciao, JE >> >> Nigel Guthrie schrieb: >> >>> [Robert Frick] >>> If they are all happy, why make trouble? But it wasn't >>> obvious to me that 4H is a clear bid, and NS seem >>> inexperienced. >>> >> So I ask a good player what he would bid with the East's >> hand. He would have just bid 3H. Not what I wanted to >> hear. >> >> I ask another relatively good player and she said she would >> bid 3D and pass 3H. I should have stopped asking people >> at this point >> >> -- I have pretty much established that not going to 4H is >> an LA. But I check one more good player, and he is firm >> that he would go straight to 4H. >> >>> [Gampas] >>> One of the people surveyed at the club in question (a good player we are >>> told) would just have bid 3H. Why should this player, who has already >>> shown himself to be a competent player by using a UCB in the first >>> place, be tarred with the same brush as that complete novice? You >>> approach East's reply "with scepticism" whereas what you should be doing >>> is deciding on the weight of evidence you are able to collect, giving >>> the benefit of the doubt to the non-offender. In the example no opponent >>> called the director back after the agreed BIT, and South stated that >>> East had his bid. >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> In practice, the director must sometimes rule on *incomplete* facts. He >>> should, however, take notice of the facts that he has *already >>> gathered*. Here, Gampas is appalled that one of East's peers chose to >>> bid 3H. Gampas makes no comment on the fact that another of East's peers >>> chose to bid 3D and then to pass 3H. It was reasonable for Robert to >>> judge the latter action to be a logical alternative. I feel that the >>> director must take care not base his ruling on his own superior bidding >>> expertise. >>> > < > +=+ I am not sure whether in the above the Director > has picked up the fact that "I check one more good > player, and he is firm that he would go straight to 4H" > is another vote against any slam try and therefore > adds to the case that to suggest it was such a try is > self-serving. It is not support for a bid of 4H after a > 3D try. ~ G ~ +=+ > > __ AG : I'm sorry, you're on the wrong track : players who bid 4H directly should be discounted, because the answer to the question 'what do you do after having bid 3D' is irrelevant (ex falso quodlibet). You seem to consider only 3D 'limit' vs 3D 'limit or slam try', while the most probable is '3D showing a raise and defensive values, unlimited'. and this only the 3D bidders can tell. Noticez that this 3rd interpretation isn't falsified by the fact that any / some / many would bid a direct 4H. Best regards Alain < No, Alain. You misinterpret me. I say that choice of a direct 4H indicates a belief that the hand is not worth a slam try. The question that then remains for our player, who has gone through 3D and says it is a slam try, is "what interpretation is open to him when the player we have consulted denies him the slam try?" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ him the slam try if we From karel at esatclear.ie Thu Jun 4 13:49:37 2009 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:49:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <4A27A5C4.2000201@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> <004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com> <4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net> <4A278792.4050002@aol.com> <001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A27A5C4.2000201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: That call can, obviously, be less than clear-cut. I have seen players in high-level competition behind screens make bids that are defined in their methods as "invitational" while simultaneously passing a note to their screenmate that says "I'm bidding at least game no matter what" just to protect themselves. This legal ? The screen mate is not entitled to this information .... K. From wmevius at hotmail.com Thu Jun 4 13:53:25 2009 From: wmevius at hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:53:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> <004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com> <4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net> <4A278792.4050002@aol.com> <001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A27A5C4.2000201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: you can tell your screenmate anything - show them your hand if you want. As long as the information you give them is correct. People do this to make sure that if there's going to be a long pause before the tray comes back you can still bid the game without them claiming it was based on the UI. Willem Mevius wmevius at hotmail.com > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:49:37 +0100 > From: karel at esatclear.ie > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > > That call can, obviously, be less than clear-cut. I have seen > players in high-level competition behind screens make bids that are > defined in their methods as "invitational" while simultaneously > passing a note to their screenmate that says "I'm bidding at least > game no matter what" just to protect themselves. > > > This legal ? The screen mate is not entitled to this information .... > > > K. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090604/22d848eb/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 4 16:17:15 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:17:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net> <4A278792.4050002@aol.com> <001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <01594D9C-D601-433B-B09F-0C2FFA9D1672@starpower.net> On Jun 4, 2009, at 6:29 AM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ I am not sure whether in the above the Director > has picked up the fact that "I check one more good > player, and he is firm that he would go straight to 4H" > is another vote against any slam try and therefore > adds to the case that to suggest it was such a try is > self-serving. It is not support for a bid of 4H after a > 3D try. It may not be relevant to this particular hand, but, as others have pointed out, it may be necessary in a competitive auction to engage in a pseudo-slam-try sequence even with no interest in slam, in order to make a pass of an opponent's potential sacrifice forcing. It is a common agreement that jumps to game in competitive sequences are preemptive or semi-preemptive, requiring the bidder to take a stronger auction to game with values for defense. This is not incompatible with the agreement that 3D is a presumptive invitation which might be preliminary to a slam move if partner shows strength. So 3D is, in effect, a three-way bid, which might be made with (a) a game invitation, (b) a hand that wants to play 4H but does not wish to allow the opponents to play above 4H undoubled, or (c) a genuine slam try. My dubiousness about Grattan's hard-line position comes from the fact that, around here at least, this would be considered standard expert practice. In our local Flight A game, I would expect just about every pair to have some sort of implicit agreement along these lines (which they would categorize as "general bridge knowledge"), but would expect few if any to be able to point to any kind of documentation. Indeed, I would consider it "general bridge knowledge" (at the Flight A level) that *any* forcing bid that is explicitly agreed as "invitational" is only presumptively so, and may be based on a better- than-invitational hand which plans to reveal itself by bidding again on some auctions. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 4 19:12:38 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 18:12:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net><4A278792.4050002@aol.com> <001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <01594D9C-D601-433B-B09F-0C2FFA9D1672@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002101c9e537$aa9d0930$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > It may not be relevant to this particular hand, but, as others have > pointed out, it may be necessary in a competitive auction to engage > in a pseudo-slam-try sequence even with no interest in slam, in order > to make a pass of an opponent's potential sacrifice forcing. It is a > common agreement that jumps to game in competitive sequences are > preemptive or semi-preemptive, requiring the bidder to take a > stronger auction to game with values for defense. > > This is not incompatible with the agreement that 3D is a presumptive > invitation which might be preliminary to a slam move if partner shows > strength. So 3D is, in effect, a three-way bid, which might be made > with (a) a game invitation, (b) a hand that wants to play 4H but does > not wish to allow the opponents to play above 4H undoubled, or (c) a > genuine slam try. > > My dubiousness about Grattan's hard-line position comes from the fact > that, around here at least, this would be considered standard expert > practice. In our local Flight A game, I would expect just about > every pair to have some sort of implicit agreement along these lines > (which they would categorize as "general bridge knowledge"), but > would expect few if any to be able to point to any kind of > documentation. > > Indeed, I would consider it "general bridge knowledge" (at the Flight > A level) that *any* forcing bid that is explicitly agreed as > "invitational" is only presumptively so, and may be based on a better- > than-invitational hand which plans to reveal itself by bidding again > on some auctions. > +=+ Certainly the player can deceive everybody with his intentions. However, he can be destroyed by an unrimely piece of UI from partner. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml at arcor.de Thu Jun 4 19:29:01 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 19:29:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <01594D9C-D601-433B-B09F-0C2FFA9D1672@starpower.net> References: <01594D9C-D601-433B-B09F-0C2FFA9D1672@starpower.net> <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net> <4A278792.4050002@aol.com> <001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <10018908.1244136541906.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 4, 2009, at 6:29 AM, Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ I am not sure whether in the above the Director > > has picked up the fact that "I check one more good > > player, and he is firm that he would go straight to 4H" > > is another vote against any slam try and therefore > > adds to the case that to suggest it was such a try is > > self-serving. It is not support for a bid of 4H after a > > 3D try. > > It may not be relevant to this particular hand, but, as others have > pointed out, it may be necessary in a competitive auction to engage > in a pseudo-slam-try sequence even with no interest in slam, in order > to make a pass of an opponent's potential sacrifice forcing. It is a > common agreement that jumps to game in competitive sequences are > preemptive or semi-preemptive, requiring the bidder to take a > stronger auction to game with values for defense. > > This is not incompatible with the agreement that 3D is a presumptive > invitation which might be preliminary to a slam move if partner shows > strength. So 3D is, in effect, a three-way bid, which might be made > with (a) a game invitation, (b) a hand that wants to play 4H but does > not wish to allow the opponents to play above 4H undoubled, or (c) a > genuine slam try. Fully agree with Eric. That is a very common default meaning of such a 3D bid if there are no other, more specific agreements. Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 4 22:46:47 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:46:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <002101c9e537$aa9d0930$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net><4A278792.4050002@aol.com> <001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <01594D9C-D601-433B-B09F-0C2FFA9D1672@starpower.net> <002101c9e537$aa9d0930$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> It may not be relevant to this particular hand, but, as others have >> pointed out, it may be necessary in a competitive auction to engage >> in a pseudo-slam-try sequence even with no interest in slam, in order >> to make a pass of an opponent's potential sacrifice forcing. It is a >> common agreement that jumps to game in competitive sequences are >> preemptive or semi-preemptive, requiring the bidder to take a >> stronger auction to game with values for defense. >> >> This is not incompatible with the agreement that 3D is a presumptive >> invitation which might be preliminary to a slam move if partner shows >> strength. So 3D is, in effect, a three-way bid, which might be made >> with (a) a game invitation, (b) a hand that wants to play 4H but does >> not wish to allow the opponents to play above 4H undoubled, or (c) a >> genuine slam try. >> >> My dubiousness about Grattan's hard-line position comes from the fact >> that, around here at least, this would be considered standard expert >> practice. In our local Flight A game, I would expect just about >> every pair to have some sort of implicit agreement along these lines >> (which they would categorize as "general bridge knowledge"), but >> would expect few if any to be able to point to any kind of >> documentation. >> >> Indeed, I would consider it "general bridge knowledge" (at the Flight >> A level) that *any* forcing bid that is explicitly agreed as >> "invitational" is only presumptively so, and may be based on a >> better- >> than-invitational hand which plans to reveal itself by bidding again >> on some auctions. > > +=+ Certainly the player can deceive everybody with his intentions. > However, he can be destroyed by an unrimely piece of UI > from partner. Apparently I was not clear in my earlier post, as I certainly didn't intend to suggest anything that might in any way be described as "deceiv[ing]" anybody. What I hoped to describe is, in my experience, common expert practice based on general expert-level bridge knowledge, which would be a mutually assumed implicit agreement on the part of any two locals sitting down as a first-time partnership in the Flight A game. An auction like 1H-2D-3D (a simpler analog of the thread case) would, without discussion, be assumed to show game-invitational or better values with heart support. -P-3H-P-4H would be a perfectly normal continuation, suggesting that the 3D bidder wanted to insure that forcing passes would be in effect over 4H (they would not be after 1H-2D-4H), and may also have been contemplating making a slam try over some stronger reply than 3H. This agreement might well be described at the table as "invitational" to distinguish it from the less popular alternative, which would be "game forcing". Nobody would doubt that "invitational" was understood to mean "possibly only invitational", as it is GBK at this level that all forcing game-try sequences are presumptively rather than definitionally invitational. This would be no different from calling 1S-P-2S-P-3C a "short suit game try" rather than the more literal "short suit game-or-possibly- slam try". In a smooth auction that went 1H-2D-3D-P-3H-P-4H it would not occur to anyone to that the 3D/4H bidder had reevaluated his hand and was now "accepting his own invitation", as opposed to simply completing a two-step sequence to 4H with a hand unsuitable for 1H-2D-4H. I do understand that a huddle "between the steps" by partner might give cause to suspect that the 4H bid might possibly have represented a reevaluation rather than an always-intended "second step", and that it might behoove the director to investigate the possibility. But it seems awfully harsh to do a full 180 from what would be the natural assumption in a smooth auction and presume it so absent positive evidence to the contrary, which is how I read Grattan's position. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 4 23:23:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 22:23:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net><4A278792.4050002@aol.com><001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred><01594D9C-D601-433B-B09F-0C2FFA9D1672@starpower.net><002101c9e537$aa9d0930$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000c01c9e55a$b321bd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Eric Landau" >> >>> It may not be relevant to this particular hand, but, as others have >>> pointed out, it may be necessary in a competitive auction to engage >>> in a pseudo-slam-try sequence even with no interest in slam, in order >>> to make a pass of an opponent's potential sacrifice forcing. It is a >>> common agreement that jumps to game in competitive sequences are >>> preemptive or semi-preemptive, requiring the bidder to take a >>> stronger auction to game with values for defense. >>> >>> This is not incompatible with the agreement that 3D is a presumptive >>> invitation which might be preliminary to a slam move if partner shows >>> strength. So 3D is, in effect, a three-way bid, which might be made >>> with (a) a game invitation, (b) a hand that wants to play 4H but does >>> not wish to allow the opponents to play above 4H undoubled, or (c) a >>> genuine slam try. >>> >>> My dubiousness about Grattan's hard-line position comes from the fact >>> that, around here at least, this would be considered standard expert >>> practice. In our local Flight A game, I would expect just about >>> every pair to have some sort of implicit agreement along these lines >>> (which they would categorize as "general bridge knowledge"), but >>> would expect few if any to be able to point to any kind of >>> documentation. >>> >>> Indeed, I would consider it "general bridge knowledge" (at the Flight >>> A level) that *any* forcing bid that is explicitly agreed as >>> "invitational" is only presumptively so, and may be based on a >>> better- >>> than-invitational hand which plans to reveal itself by bidding again >>> on some auctions. >> >> +=+ Certainly the player can deceive everybody with his intentions. >> However, he can be destroyed by an unrimely piece of UI >> from partner. > > Apparently I was not clear in my earlier post, as I certainly didn't > intend to suggest anything that might in any way be described as > "deceiv[ing]" anybody. What I hoped to describe is, in my > experience, common expert practice based on general expert-level > bridge knowledge, which would be a mutually assumed implicit > agreement on the part of any two locals sitting down as a first-time > partnership in the Flight A game. > > An auction like 1H-2D-3D (a simpler analog of the thread case) would, > without discussion, be assumed to show game-invitational or better > values with heart support. -P-3H-P-4H would be a perfectly normal > continuation, suggesting that the 3D bidder wanted to insure that > forcing passes would be in effect over 4H (they would not be after > 1H-2D-4H), and may also have been contemplating making a slam try > over some stronger reply than 3H. This agreement might well be > described at the table as "invitational" to distinguish it from the > less popular alternative, which would be "game forcing". Nobody > would doubt that "invitational" was understood to mean "possibly only > invitational", as it is GBK at this level that all forcing game-try > sequences are presumptively rather than definitionally invitational. > This would be no different from calling 1S-P-2S-P-3C a "short suit > game try" rather than the more literal "short suit game-or-possibly- > slam try". > > In a smooth auction that went 1H-2D-3D-P-3H-P-4H it would not occur > to anyone to that the 3D/4H bidder had reevaluated his hand and was > now "accepting his own invitation", as opposed to simply completing a > two-step sequence to 4H with a hand unsuitable for 1H-2D-4H. I do > understand that a huddle "between the steps" by partner might give > cause to suspect that the 4H bid might possibly have represented a > reevaluation rather than an always-intended "second step", and that > it might behoove the director to investigate the possibility. But it > seems awfully harsh to do a full 180 from what would be the natural > assumption in a smooth auction and presume it so absent positive > evidence to the contrary, which is how I read Grattan's position. > > +=+ And I understand that. But the word is 'invitational' and the introduction of UI from partner can destroy the way forward because thereupon the player may well find himself stuck with the systemic meaning of the call. ~ G ~ +=+ From tedying at yahoo.com Thu Jun 4 23:35:57 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <000c01c9e55a$b321bd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net><4A278792.4050002@aol.com><001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred><01594D9C-D601-433B-B09F-0C2FFA9D1672@starpower.net><002101c9e537$aa9d0930$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000c01c9e55a$b321bd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <353825.41074.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I frequently direct at the game that Eric describes and most players in the A game will explain the cuebid as "invitational or better" which then allows the bid of 4H as "better". It is then up to the director to determine whether the 4H bidder has taken advantage of UI or whether the hand was always considered a hand good enough to go to game or reevaluated based on the UI. In our game, a direct 4H would be a misrepresentation by the majority of our players as that would signify either hand that was preemptive or a hand with offensive strength without defensive strength. And all of this is considered general bridge knowledge in this field. -Ted Ying. ________________________________ From: Grattan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2009 5:23:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > +=+ And I understand that. But the word is 'invitational' and the introduction of UI from partner can destroy the way forward because thereupon the player may well find himself stuck with the systemic meaning of the call. ~ G ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ 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/20090604/263b0407/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 5 01:07:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:07:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: TIME magazine book critic Lev Grossman (April 2nd 2009): "Has there ever been a work of literature that couldn't be improved by adding zombies? Seth Grahame-Smith is the author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, the premise of which explains itself: the Bennet family lives in a rural English village, where their primary concerns are a) marrying off their five daughters, and b) defending themselves against wave after wave of the remorseless, relentless walking dead." Richard Hills: >>Of course, while we are congratulating ourselves on the >>new improved Lawbook which prevents the ACBL powers-that >>-be changing immutable Laws, correspondence from another >>blmler revealed to me that many private bridge club >>owners in the ACBL-land have no compunction in their >>remorseless and relentless rewriting of Law 12 and Law >>16 to keep all their zombie customers happy with wave >>after wave of unearned good scores. Jeff Easterson: >Allow me to take issue with the statement "if they are >all happy, why make trouble?" This is/can be dangerous. >Always give both sides a top, then they will be happy. >We had,some years ago a TD in a European federation who >almost always gave both pairs 60%. They were always >happy. In most/many cases the other pairs don't realise >what has happened and thus are not unhappy either. (If >they see 60%/60% on the frequencies they assume that it >was a correct decision.) Ciao, JE Richard Hills: Yes, private correspondence from another blmler revealed the House Laws of his local Egdirb Club. Players were given an incentive to infract Law 16. If their opponents called the Director, the Egdirb House Laws required a Law 12 Split Score based on a Split Universe. The players were assumed to live in Universe A, in which they had not committed a Law 16 infraction, so they kept their table score. Meanwhile the opponents were assumed to live in Universe B, in which they were damaged by the Law 16 infraction, so they gained a Law 12 adjusted score. Meanwhile ethical players were unvaryingly at a score disadvantage due to them abiding by Law 73C: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jun 5 02:38:17 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:38:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification In-Reply-To: <200906021515.n52FFv8j005352@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200906021515.n52FFv8j005352@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A2868F9.2090808@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > And that's why, in marginal cases, I prefer to let the bidding go and > use L16 if needed. L27D, not L16. From Gampas at aol.com Fri Jun 5 01:54:52 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 19:54:52 EDT Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling Message-ID: N E S W 1D P 1NT 2H P 3D(1) P 3H(2) P 4H (1) showing 10+ points and heart support [grattan] +=+ And I understand that. But the word is 'invitational' and the introduction of UI from partner can destroy the way forward because thereupon the player may well find himself stuck with the systemic meaning of the call. ~ G ~ +=+ [lamford] Nothing in the original post suggested that the bid was only invitational; indeed the plus sign after the 10 indicated no upper limit. Indeed East stated he was always bidding game, his hand showed that he was always bidding game, and the common methods in the ACBL is that bidding 3D followed by 4H shows a value raise to game, with some defence. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. The opinion of someone who would have bid 4H or 3H on the round before is irrelevant. [grattan] +=+ I am not sure whether in the above the Director has picked up the fact that "I check one more good player, and he is firm that he would go straight to 4H" is another vote against any slam try and therefore adds to the case that to suggest it was such a try is self-serving. It is not support for a bid of 4H after a 3D try. [lamford] Grattan repeats this argument which had already been dealt with by several people, 3D is not only a slam try - one benefit is that it will reach a slam when partner has extra values; its main purpose is to inform partner that one has a value raise to game. It would indeed also be used on a hand that would pass 3H, perhaps without the fifth heart and the king of spades, but that is completely irrelevant. [grattan] No, Alain. You misinterpret me. I say that choice of a direct 4H indicates a belief that the hand is not worth a slam try. The question that then re mains for our player, who has gone through 3D and says it is a slam try, is "what interpretation is open to him when the player we have consulted denies him the slam try?" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [lamford] The opinion of the player who thinks the hand is not worth a slam try is also completely irrelevant. LAs are judged solely on what a player of the same ability and playing the same methods would select after they have chosen the 3D route. We ignore the spoilt ballot paper (or should it have been the pregnant chad) which showed one person would have bid 3H instead of 3D. We are not interested in the opinion of those that would bid 4H immediately. They are, by definition, either not of the same ability or not playing the same methods. The people we are interested in are those that would bid 3D. These fall into three categories: a) the player who thought his hand was only invitational b) the player who thought his hand was worth game, but did not want to make a slam try; he wanted to show defensive values c) the player who thought his hand was worth a slam try, and would have co-operated with 4C over 3S. It would seem from the posts that we have no more details of the E/W methods than we are told above. We therefore decide on the balance of evidence (naturally we can ask questions, but I presume the TD does not want to chase them up now) giving any doubt to the non-offenders. Now I would submit that the very fact that East used a UCB is already an indication that he is a competent player. Weak players do not employ UCBs. In addition, he indicated that he was always bidding game, but this is rejected as self-supporting. However, what must not be rejected as self-serving is the hand that he was looking at, which reinforces his claim that he was always bidding game, and refutes the view of the TD that he was lying and that he thought the hand was invitational. We might indeed decide differently if East had said something along the lines of "It looked like partner was considering bidding game, and I had a bit extra for my bid", but there is no evidence against East at all that I read. Frances Hinden, for one, agreed with the 3D bid, and she is the EBU blog writer on Laws and Ethics. Her posting: "In reverse order: No, I do not agree with my actions to date, I would have overcalled 1H on the first round. Having passed, then bid 3D, I would now bid 4H showing a hand that was too strong to raise directly to 4H last round. Given that Axx AKxxx Q9x xx is enough to make slam pretty good, and it just needs hearts 1-1 opposite Axxx Axxxxx x Qx I must be worth some sort of mild try. I'm going to miss some perfect fit slams anyway, but if the 1NT bidder is having a bit of a joke and partner has a good hand, at least we have a chance of bidding it. Unfortunately partner is never going to play me for this hand, because I can't have decent high cards and a fifth heart... let's hope that more high cards and one fewer heart would come to much the same thing. (Yes, the first example leaves the opponents rather lacking in high cards... but they were NV at matchpoints, and we see a lot of very light openings and responses in those conditions)" [lamford] On her last point, I thought there was quite a possibility that North was having a little joke with S 10xxxxxx H x D xxx C xx. Shock, horror, a psyche in the ACBL. We really must not be talking about that, must we. Sorry for the long submission, but I agree with Brinig, who is happy to be quoted, that Grattan's agreement with the adjustment to 3H + 2 comes from The Twilight Zone. From adam at irvine.com Fri Jun 5 02:17:31 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:17:31 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:54:52 EDT." Message-ID: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> Paul Lamford wrote: > We are not interested in the opinion of those that would bid 4H > immediately. They are, by definition, either not of the same > ability or not playing the same methods. Well, that's not exactly true. Law 40C1 allows you to make any bid you want, including bids that violate your methods; the player at the table could have thus bid 3D on a hand where the partnership methods dictated he should have bid 4H. However, I reject the idea that if you make a bid that violates your methods, you are then stuck if you later have UI. I don't think there's any basis in the Laws for that. I think the Logical Alternatives would have to be determined by determining whether a significant proportion of players in the same class, using the same methods, WHO DECIDED TO VIOLATE THEIR METHODS IN THE SAME WAY (before the UI), would seriously consider an action etc. Of course, the fact that a player made a bid that violated his system could be evidence that the player evaluated his hand differently---say, more pessimistically---than his statements to the director afterwards would indicate. Thus, if the player said "I bid 3D unsystemically, planning to bid 4H later because such-and-such", the director has to decide whether he's telling the truth. He can rule that the player probably really did think his hand was worth only an invitation. But IMHO he's not REQUIRED to. It's a judgment call. As someone who likes to be "creative" in the auction occasionally, the idea that I'm not allowed to play bridge if I make an unsystemic bid and then receive UI later is obnoxious. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 5 03:19:41 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:19:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A26220D.4030208@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >I ask Ali (away from the table if he has not yet explained to the >table what has happened), what has happened. > >I believe there can be no other response than a mispull. Richard Hills: Sure a mispull from the bidding box is overwhelmingly likely. But I was entertained by Paul Lamford's alternative Rueful Rabbit story whereby a lucky Law 27B2 action by the Rabbit could not be over-ruled by Law 27D. Herman De Wael: >I then rule according to L25. Please make the bid you wanted to. > >If the response is something else, please tell me. Nigel Guthrie: >>In any case, we have to assume that we've been told all >>available relevant facts, when presented with a case on BLML. Richard Hills: As is my wont, I omitted some relevant facts. Canberra Bridge Club Knockout Teams, first stanza Dlr: East Vul: Both South holds: A5 Q972 A542 QT7 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali --- --- Pass 1NT(1) Pass 2C (2)(x) Pass(y) 2C (z) (3) (4) (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 6-card minor, denies a 5-card major, denies 2 doubletons. (2) Simple (single-barrelled) Stayman. Permitted responses: (a) 2D = denies a 4-card major (b) 2H = promises 4 hearts, does not deny 4 spades (c) 2S = promises 4 spades, denies 4 hearts (x) Hashmat Ali routinely alerted 2C, in accordance with what has been the ABF policy for many years that most conventions should be alerted. (y) Richard Hills, a pluperfect pedant, noted that the revised ABF alert regulation (effective from 1st July 2008) meant that a 2C response to 1NT in an uncontested auction was now a self-alerting call. (z) Distracted by this new knowledge of ABF regulation, Hashmat Ali unintentionally averted his gaze from his bidding box as he attempted to pull out the 2H card. (3) North-South have formed a very regular partnership for two millennia, with their simple Symmetric Relay bidding system (notes emailed on request) 99% unchanged for half-a-dozen years; responses to Stayman 100% unchanged. North drew attention to South's irregularity and summoned the Director due to North having a childlike glee in posing problems for Australia's Chief Director, Sean Mullamphy. (4) Actually North should have self-reported his Law 40B3(a) infraction, since the October 2008 minutes of the WBF Laws Committee make it clear that it is unLawful to remind pard about relevant regulations during the bidding or play. Tony Musgrove: >There can be no more daunting director call than to Richard's >table. > >a) Let's try an L25A mispull. > >b) If not, [snip] >provided the IBer feels that he is providing the same or a >more detailed description of his hand, and that is what he >intended (spiel about the mop up provisions). [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, a very interesting issue. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that Law 25A does not apply, does a Non-Systemic 3C insufficiently bid as a Non-Systemic 2C show: (1) Zero possible hand shapes, thus mandating a Law 27B2 replacement call silencing pard for the rest of the auction? or (2) All possible hand shapes, thus permitting a "more precise" Law 27B1(b) correction to 2H? 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 Jun 5 03:52:22 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:52:22 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <47BD31449C124A9C8CB7EABBFFD1BFCF@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > > A few weeks ago I engaged Marv with extensive private > correspondence about his UI guide, resulting in Marv > unselfishly making major revisions. And Richard keeping me from making stupid mistakes! > > Perhaps Marv might elect to publish his current draft on > blml, so that others can more easily make constructive > suggestions (for example, Grattan Endicott might spot a > nuance of Law, or David Burn might spot a dangling > participle). The guide is just a draft at this time. I still need to know whether the notice of the UI and the "reseve the right" must go together. That is, can you remark on the UI and say nothing more, or just "reserve the right" without saying why, or must they go together, nearly simultaneous? This may have been answered before, but I was out of town for a while. While UI is not an irregularity *per se*, when the nature of it is very objectionable we can call the TD. Not for the UI itself, but for any nastiness that accompanies it, which becomes a Zero Tolerance offense in ACBL-land (under Law 91, not Law 90). For ZT, the TD must be called immediately, no waiting. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 5 04:05:55 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:05:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >So to summarize, I think the director needs to know that explicit >agreed-upon partnership agreements and that those should be a part of >the poll. I think the rest kind of has to be thrown into the wind. > >I am not sure how Grattan means his words. But the words themselves >don't ring right for me. "We must not substitute our judgment for his." >Where in the laws does it say that his judgment is relevant to my >ruling? Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Richard Hills: Implicit partnership agreements (for example, pard's 2H overcall being very strong, guaranteeing 13 hcp or more) are part of "the methods of the partnership", so are not thrown to the wind. Implicitly agreed negative inferences (for example, an immediate leap to 4H denying any defensive values) are part of "the methods of the partnership", so are not thrown to the wind. Correctly evaluating the hand as worth an immediate overcall of 1H over RHO's 1D helps define one's class of player. Since the actual player chose to Pass instead, Frances Hinden and myself are a different class of player, so our views on later Logical Alternatives are irrelevant. Robert Frick: >I am pretty sure Grattan means to agree with me that if he intended to >bid 4H all along, that should be completely irrelevant to the ruling. Richard Hills: Not necessarily. A self-serving statement saying, "I was always going to bid game," has little weight. But if one, at the start of the National Championship, has lodged one's written system notes with the Tournament Organizer, and if those notes demonstrate that one plays idiosyncratic methods whereby pard's 3H response to 3D was a 100% game- force, then that is highly relevant to the ruling. Robert Frick: >I always tell my players that it is irrelevant if they were always >planning on making a bid whether or not partner hesitated. Richard Hills: Not quite the right spiel. Bob should tell his players that what is relevant is whether one or more Logical Alternatives exist. Players are not required to kamikaze by Passing pard's hesitant Blackwood. What is unLawful is bidding on to slam (without any useful void) after the hesitant Blackwooder, captain of the auction, has signed off in game. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Gampas at aol.com Fri Jun 5 04:45:03 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 22:45:03 EDT Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: [richard hills] Correctly evaluating the hand as worth an immediate overcall of 1H over RHO's 1D helps define one's class of player. Since the actual player chose to Pass instead, Frances Hinden and myself are a different class of player, so our views on later Logical Alternatives are irrelevant. [paul lamford] I concurred on IBLF with Frances' preference for a 1H overcall. But I think it goes too far to say that the bidder is not in the same class because of the failure to overcall on the first round (although not many are in the same class as Frances); not of the same style perhaps, as I found a handful of strong players who chose not to overcall, or at least not to feel strongly about it. It is much more relevant that Frances would also have bid 3D, and irrelevant is much too strong to describe her opinion. Let us say that someone passes slowly over a weak NT, and his partner bids Landy in the seat opposite. You would not reject as irrelevant the fact that someone of about the same strength who played Cappelletti instead would also have bid 2D. If you do, then polling peers becomes too time-consuming. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 5 04:45:17 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:45:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:17:31 -0400, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Paul Lamford wrote: > >> We are not interested in the opinion of those that would bid 4H >> immediately. They are, by definition, either not of the same >> ability or not playing the same methods. > > Well, that's not exactly true. Law 40C1 allows you to make any bid > you want, including bids that violate your methods; the player at the > table could have thus bid 3D on a hand where the partnership methods > dictated he should have bid 4H. However, I reject the idea that if > you make a bid that violates your methods, you are then stuck if you > later have UI. I don't think there's any basis in the Laws for that. > I think the Logical Alternatives would have to be determined by > determining whether a significant proportion of players in the same > class, using the same methods, WHO DECIDED TO VIOLATE THEIR METHODS IN > THE SAME WAY (before the UI), would seriously consider an action etc. > > Of course, the fact that a player made a bid that violated his system > could be evidence that the player evaluated his hand > differently---say, more pessimistically---than his statements to the > director afterwards would indicate. Thus, if the player said "I bid > 3D unsystemically, planning to bid 4H later because such-and-such", > the director has to decide whether he's telling the truth. Just to make sure of what you are saying here. Suppose ths same auction occurs tomorrow. There is a hesitation (agreed), it suggests bidding on over passing (agreed), and a poll shows that a significant number of players of about this ability using these methods would consider passing and some of these would select it. Are you saying that if the player says "I was always planning on bidding 4H", the director has to decide if he is telling the truth? Because according to the laws, I don't see why it is relevant whether or not the player intended to bid 4H all along. The player has committed an infraction (L16B1). L16B3 says "The director shall assign an adjusted score", not "may assign an adjusted score". (If the infraction has resulted in an advantage to the offender". > He can > rule that the player probably really did think his hand was worth only > an invitation. Really? Is this what the director would be ruling? I must say that when I made my ruling, I was not thinking that. > But IMHO he's not REQUIRED to. It's a judgment call. > > As someone who likes to be "creative" in the auction occasionally, the > idea that I'm not allowed to play bridge if I make an unsystemic bid > and then receive UI later is obnoxious. I completely agree. Suppose my partner opens 1S fourth seat and I have almost an opening hand and I want to be in 4S. It is bad bridge to jump to 4S, but my only forcing bids (being a passed hand) are a Bergen 3D (showing almost an opening hand and invitational to game) or a Bergen 3C (showing the same strength as a 2S raise but an additional trump). It looks relatively safe to bid 3D and then convert partner's 3S bid to 4S. But if partner hesitates and bids 3S, I might be trashed -- it becomes a question of what the director will decide about UI. So my partner and I have agreed to use the 3C response as our path to game. Similarly, I polled another good player at the club today, and one of his reasons for jumping to 4H with that hand was to avoid the potential UI problem. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 5 05:13:30 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:13:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:05:55 -0400, wrote: > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >> So to summarize, I think the director needs to know that explicit >> agreed-upon partnership agreements and that those should be a part of >> the poll. I think the rest kind of has to be thrown into the wind. >> >> I am not sure how Grattan means his words. But the words themselves >> don't ring right for me. "We must not substitute our judgment for his." >> Where in the laws does it say that his judgment is relevant to my >> ruling? > > Law 16B1(b): > > "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players > in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given > serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of > whom it is judged some might select it." > > Richard Hills: > > Implicit partnership agreements (for example, pard's 2H overcall being > very strong, guaranteeing 13 hcp or more) are part of "the methods of > the partnership", so are not thrown to the wind. Ah, you got me on that one. "Thrown to the wind" is probably the wrong phrase, and I am the one who used it. If we could access the implicit partnership agreements, we would not then throw them into the wind. The problem is that there is no good way to get at them. So "lost in the wind" would have been a better analogy. When you are talking about explicit knowledge, then the player either remembers or doesn't and either tells the truth or doesn't. When you are talking about implicit knowledge, it is a lot harder to get at. Believe it or not, people's beliefs and conclusions are influenced by their desires. That's the hard part of being honest with yourself. In this particular situation, the player has a desire to believe that his partner's overcalls are strong. That is going to bias the process of retrieving the implicit partnership agreement, IMO. I agree that "using the methods of the partnership" (L16B1b) includes implicit agreements. Or at least that is how I would interpret it. I just can't find any appropriate way of doing that, given that I believe that asking the person doesn't work -- it is unverifiable self-report of something that the player cannot accurately know. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 5 05:43:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:43:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Correctly evaluating the hand as worth an immediate overcall of >>1H over RHO's 1D helps define one's class of player. Since the >>actual player chose to Pass instead, Frances Hinden and myself >>are a different class of player, so our views on later Logical >>Alternatives are irrelevant. Paul Lamford: [snip] >Let us say that someone passes slowly over a weak NT, and his >partner bids Landy in the seat opposite. You would not reject as >irrelevant the fact that someone of about the same strength who >played Cappelletti instead would also have bid 2D. If you do, >then polling peers becomes too time-consuming. Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby (1844): "We owe the English peerage to three sources: the spoliation of the Church; the open and flagrant sale of honours by the elder Stuarts; and the borough-mongering of our own time." Richard Hills: Grattan Endicott noted earlier that it was irrelevant that most blmlers had reasonable hand-evaluation skills, and therefore most blmlers thought that there was not any Logical Alternative to raising pard's 3H to game. What is relevant is whether the player in question is of the same "class of player' as most blmlers. If the player in question is of the Walter the Walrus "class of player" then that Walrus has two Logical Alternatives, a Pass of 3H and a raise to 4H. Earlier another blmler wrote that a Pass of 3H must necessarily be a misbid. Not so; it is a consistent call by the hand-evaluation skills of a Walrus, who over-emphasises the Milton Work point count and under-emphasises the known big trump fit in hearts. I use Cappelletti in my Symmetric Relay methods (system notes emailed on request). But indeed I believe that a player who uses Landy is not my peer, since in my opinion Landy is a dangerously incomplete convention. So "someone of about the same strength" begs the question, petitio principii. Even if they get more-or- less the same mediocre results with their methods as I do with my methods, they would be an entirely different "class of player" in their approach to the game. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 06:39:34 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:39:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0906042139h61288ef6ge586951988caf02a@mail.gmail.com> Robert Frick wrote: > > Similarly, I polled another good player at the club today, and one of his > reasons for jumping to 4H with that hand was to avoid the potential UI > problem. > Payne and Amsbury recommend 4D as the solution to the original problem, as in 1D P 1N 2H P 4D That's what I like to use, plus it helps prevent the opponents finding their fit. The problem is that you have to be sure you really want game no matter how bad your partner's overcall is. With this agreement, you bid 3D only when you can live with partner's decision. In my simulations, this hand is not good enough to consider slam because of the spade suit. Admittedly, 3D as limit-raise or better is more effective because directors often let you get away with using tempo to decide whether or not to bid to game anyway. I cannot fathom why directors are so lenient towards this kind of violation. If you bid 3D and your partner produces 3H in zero seconds, you know that pass is best, and the director will laugh at your opponents if they hint that it might constitute a break in tempo. Anyone care to speculate whether the following hands would be good enough for 2H at matchpoints, none vul? A. Q853 AJ9642 32 2 B. Q75 KQJ964 97 62 C. 873 AKQ94 743 96 D. 854 KQJ42 9 9843 None of these will achieve game with the original hand (the 3D raiser) under study: K62 T8753 AJT5 K The people who construct hands with only two spades to justify "4H no matter what" are not thinking straight. The probability partner holds 2 spades or fewer on this auction is about 5%. You can't logically use such an unlikely good spade holding to justify game no matter what. Give the heart overcaller his expected 3 or 4 spades, and then consider how sure game is. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 5 06:46:57 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:46:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Implicit partnership agreements (for example, pard's 2H overcall being >>very strong, guaranteeing 13 hcp or more) are part of "the methods of >>the partnership", so are not thrown to the wind. Robert Frick: >Ah, you got me on that one. "Thrown to the wind" is probably the wrong >phrase, and I am the one who used it. If we could access the implicit >partnership agreements, we would not then throw them into the wind. The >problem is that there is no good way to get at them. So "lost in the >wind" would have been a better analogy. Wikipedia, Tabula Rasa: In computer science, tabula rasa refers to the development of autonomous agents which are provided with a mechanism to reason and plan toward their goal, but no "built-in" knowledge-base of their environment. They are thus truly a "blank slate". Richard Hills: Another prolific blmler attempted to justify his draconian Mistaken Explanation versus Mistaken Call rulings (in which, when TD, he almost always ruled Mistaken Explanation) by similarly arguing that there was usually not any good way to prove Mistaken Call and never any good way to prove No Agreement. But the enthymeme error is believing that every player and every partnership must necessarily be a blank slate to the Director. On the contrary; because bridge is a Class A drug, Directors become well acquainted with the quirks of recidivist bridge addicts. So, for example, Aussie Chief Director Sean Mullamphy is well aware that in the Ali-Hills partnership, Hashmat Ali occasionally mispulls a card from his bidding box, but when Richard Hills pulls a bidding box card inconsistent with his methods it is invariably an intentional psyche. 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 blml at arcor.de Fri Jun 5 06:56:32 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 06:56:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0906042139h61288ef6ge586951988caf02a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0906042139h61288ef6ge586951988caf02a@mail.gmail.com> <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5575182.1244177792569.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: > > > > Similarly, I polled another good player at the club today, and one of his > > reasons for jumping to 4H with that hand was to avoid the potential UI > > problem. > > > > Payne and Amsbury recommend 4D as the solution to the original problem, as > in > > 1D P 1N 2H > P 4D > > That's what I like to use, plus it helps prevent the opponents finding > their fit. The problem is that you have to be sure you really want > game no matter how bad your partner's overcall is. That approach has several flaws - it rules out 3NT as a possible final contract - it removes the 4D splinter, which is quite useful given that RHO opened 1D and responder rates to have a few D. - a lead directing double over 4D is easier to make as it does not assist in the decision whether to bid game, and which game to bid (for example, over 3DX, overcaller can use pass or redouble to convey additional information) Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From blml at arcor.de Fri Jun 5 07:17:30 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:17:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:17:31 -0400, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > Paul Lamford wrote: > > > >> We are not interested in the opinion of those that would bid 4H > >> immediately. They are, by definition, either not of the same > >> ability or not playing the same methods. > > > > Well, that's not exactly true. Law 40C1 allows you to make any bid > > you want, including bids that violate your methods; the player at the > > table could have thus bid 3D on a hand where the partnership methods > > dictated he should have bid 4H. However, I reject the idea that if > > you make a bid that violates your methods, you are then stuck if you > > later have UI. I don't think there's any basis in the Laws for that. > > I think the Logical Alternatives would have to be determined by > > determining whether a significant proportion of players in the same > > class, using the same methods, WHO DECIDED TO VIOLATE THEIR METHODS IN > > THE SAME WAY (before the UI), would seriously consider an action etc. > > > > Of course, the fact that a player made a bid that violated his system > > could be evidence that the player evaluated his hand > > differently---say, more pessimistically---than his statements to the > > director afterwards would indicate. Thus, if the player said "I bid > > 3D unsystemically, planning to bid 4H later because such-and-such", > > the director has to decide whether he's telling the truth. > > Just to make sure of what you are saying here. Suppose ths same auction > occurs tomorrow. There is a hesitation (agreed), it suggests bidding on > over passing (agreed), and a poll shows that a significant number of > players of about this ability using these methods would consider passing > and some of these would select it. > > Are you saying that if the player says "I was always planning on bidding > 4H", the director has to decide if he is telling the truth? > > Because according to the laws, I don't see why it is relevant whether or > not the player intended to bid 4H all along. The player has committed an > infraction (L16B1). L16B3 says "The director shall assign an adjusted > score", not "may assign an adjusted score". (If the infraction has > resulted in an advantage to the offender". The TD should not simply ignore an "I was always planning on bidding 4H" statement. If the partnership's system is such that the player would always bid on with that hand in that system, that is relevant. Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From blml at arcor.de Fri Jun 5 07:31:21 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:31:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33236767.1244179881670.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > I use Cappelletti in my Symmetric Relay methods (system notes > emailed on request). But indeed I believe that a player who uses > Landy is not my peer, since in my opinion Landy is a dangerously > incomplete convention. So "someone of about the same strength" > begs the question, petitio principii. Even if they get more-or- > less the same mediocre results with their methods as I do with my > methods, they would be an entirely different "class of player" in > their approach to the game. I deem this approach not practical. When a TD polls a player's peers, he is limited to the small set of available players. If you insist on a peer being a player who prefers the same methods and has the same playing strength, then the TD frequently will find hardly any peers at all. As for Cappelletti, yes, that will get you mediocre results, as it is a dangerously inefficient convention ;-) Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 5 08:26:13 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:26:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <33236767.1244179881670.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Albus Dumbledore: "Before we begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" Thomas Dehn: >If you insist on a peer being a player who prefers the same >methods and has the same playing strength, then the TD >frequently will find hardly any peers at all. Richard Hills: While Law 16B1(b) does not require the peer to prefer "the methods of the partnership", it does require the peer to imagine "using the methods of the partnership" without that peer's mind boggling. But most blmlers' minds boggled at the thought of ever passing pard's 3H, which could create a problem if the actual player was a Walrus for whom a Pass of 3H "would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it". Thomas Dehn: >As for Cappelletti, yes, that will get you mediocre results, >as it is a dangerously inefficient convention ;-) Richard Hills: In an environment where almost all of your opponents use the strong 1NT opening bid, the DONT convention is highly efficient, making life difficult for the opponents while creating wriggle room to dodge a penalty double. Meanwhile the Cappelletti convention is less efficient. In an environment where almost all of your opponents use the weak or mini 1NT opening bid, the DONT convention is highly inefficient, since its design is poorly oriented towards constructive invitations for your own side's games. Meanwhile the Cappelletti convention is more efficient. 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 Fri Jun 5 09:05:03 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 02:05:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <5575182.1244177792569.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <2b1e598b0906042139h61288ef6ge586951988caf02a@mail.gmail.com> <5575182.1244177792569.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0906050005l4649866es65a6fdba5806f0a6@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > Robert Frick wrote: > > > > > > Similarly, I polled another good player at the club today, and one of his > > > reasons for jumping to 4H with that hand was to avoid the potential UI > > > problem. > > > > > > > Payne and Amsbury recommend 4D as the solution to the original problem, as > > in > > > > 1D ? P ? 1N ? ?2H > > P ? 4D > > > > That's what I like to use, plus it helps prevent the opponents finding > > their fit. ?The problem is that you have to be sure you really want > > game no matter how bad your partner's overcall is. > > That approach has several flaws > - it rules out 3NT as a possible final contract Curious. Can you give a hand that would show a raise and then rather play in 3NT than 4H? I doubt that 3NT is likely to be better than 4H on this kind of auction. I was thinking of the bidding style where 3D would definitely show a raise, and then I don't see any value in playing in 3NT. There are other ways to get to 3NT, such as starting with 2NT. But 3NT is quite unlikely to be a good contract when the opponents have shown so much. > - it removes the 4D splinter, which is quite useful given that RHO opened 1D and responder rates > ?to have a few D. After they open, I would rather have a limit raise and a forcing raise than one limit-raise-or-better and a splinter. I am giving partner more information more frequently. What strength does your splinter show, and how often does it come up? > - a lead directing double over 4D is easier to make as it does not assist > ?in the decision whether to bid game, and which game to bid (for example, over 3DX, overcaller > ?can use pass or redouble to convey additional information) > You are worried about them doubling for a lead. I am worried about them finding a fit. Which is more important? I would really like to know whether you think some of my example hands labeled A--D are worthy of 2H. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 09:21:25 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 02:21:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > The TD should not simply ignore an "I was always planning on bidding 4H" > statement. > > If the partnership's system is such that the player would always bid on with > that hand in that system, that is relevant. > Yes, the TD should simply ignore the stated plans of bidding 4H. That does not mean the TD should ignore the partnership's system. No one in this thread said that the partnership's system should be ignored. We are talking about classic UI cases. The laws do not say, "Oh, since you were planning to bid 4H, go ahead." The laws do not ask the player to choose actions from what he was planning. The laws don't even ask or case about what the player was planning before the UI appeared. What they require the player to do is to determine what the UI suggests, and determine the LAs under his system, and not choose one of the LAs suggested by the UI. Nowhere in this scheme do the laws ask you to remember what you were planning and just go ahead and do it. "I was always going to" is the classic phrase players often use to show that they don't understand what is required of them under the laws. Instead of focusing on your remembered previous intentions when this kind of situation comes up, please focus on what the UI suggests and what your LAs are under your system. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 5 09:39:24 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 17:39:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Chess Grandmaster Aron Nimzowitsch (1886-1935): "Gegen diesen Idioten muss ich verlieren!" Richard Hills: >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>1NT (1) Pass 2C (2) X (3) >> >>(1) Mini >>(2) Stayman >>(3) North is ambiguously unsure whether South's X is: >> >>penalty, or >> >>lead-directing for clubs. Gordon Rainsford: >Not for any NS pair who've got an agreement about it. > >And where do you think EW are going to go after INT-2C-2S >when East has a 2-4-4-3 hand? Richard Hills: North-South may be Idioten who have an agreement that a double of East's Stayman following West's strong 1NT is lead-directing for clubs, but have failed to discuss a double of Stayman in other circumstances. So a quiet -250 in 2S undoubled is better than a noisy -800 in 1NT doubled. And if a noisy -1100 in 2S doubled is the same cold bottom as a noisy -800 in 1NT doubled, an incorrect hope that the opponents were Idioten has cost zero matchpoints. It is a natural tendency for blmlers to believe that others have the same skills and use the same methods as they themselves do, hence the huge number of electrons wasted by some blmlers arguing in parallel threads that a raise to 4H lacks any other Logical Alternative. One blmler even suggests that a player adopting a Cue Raise as part of their methods automatically means that that player cannot possibly be an Idioten. :-) In Canberra I know a really lovely lady who really loves bridge, but is worse than Mrs Guggenheim. This really lovely lady has adopted the Brown Sticker RCO Twos. :-) Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 5 09:43:26 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:43:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <4A277534.1010109@skynet.be> References: <200906021626.JAA21496@mailhub.irvine.com><4A25B4DD.4030108@talktalk.net><001001c9e418$70a80f60$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A2690E5.4030105@ulb.ac.be> <001601c9e4b4$e8a2cf40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A277534.1010109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A28CC9E.6040906@skynet.be> I have since read the posts regarding a third possible meaning of 3D and I agree that the problem is not as simple as it first looks. I have learnt something. Herman. Herman De Wael wrote: > I really don't see what the fuss is about. > Grattan says it very clearly: > > Grattan wrote: > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> [* I would perhaps avoid discussing what bid to make and >> simply ask for a judgement - "do you pass 2H, do you make >> a trial bid for partner to choose between 3 and 4 hearts, do >> you raise to game, or do you explore mild possibilities of a >> slam?"] >> > > Is this really a hand where both the second and fourth options are > possible? The player did not simply raise to game, so he was either > unsure about it game or saw slam possibilities. If it's the former, then > he musn't raise a slow 3H to 4H, if it's the latter, then raising to 4H > must be allowed. Are you telling me it is unclear what this hand is worth? > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Jun 5 09:54:41 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:54:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> <004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be><8CBB26 084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk. net> <4A278792.4050002@aol.com><001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A27A5C4.2000201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A28CF41.3020003@meteo.fr> Karel a ?crit : > > That call can, obviously, be less than clear-cut. I have seen > players in high-level competition behind screens make bids that are > defined in their methods as "invitational" while simultaneously > passing a note to their screenmate that says "I'm bidding at least > game no matter what" just to protect themselves. > > > This legal ? we had a long thread (UI insurance) about this, 10 years ago. as right as i remember, the conclusion was that it was deemed illegal. jpr > The screen mate is not entitled to this information .... > > > K. -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 5 10:30:58 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:30:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification In-Reply-To: <4A2868F9.2090808@nhcc.net> References: <200906021515.n52FFv8j005352@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A2868F9.2090808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4A28D7C2.4070005@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> And that's why, in marginal cases, I prefer to let the bidding go and >> use L16 if needed. >> > > L27D, not L16. > I confirm : L16. If, unexpectedly, UI seems to have affected the ruling and benn used, I correct the score. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 5 11:53:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:53:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be><8CBB26 084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk. net><4A278792.4050002@aol.com><001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred><4A27A5C4.2000201@ulb.ac.be> <4A28CF41.3020003@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <003101c9e5c3$a84027d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling Karel a ?crit : > > That call can, obviously, be less than clear-cut. I have seen > players in high-level competition behind screens make bids that are > defined in their methods as "invitational" while simultaneously > passing a note to their screenmate that says "I'm bidding at least > game no matter what" just to protect themselves. > > > This legal ? we had a long thread (UI insurance) about this, 10 years ago. as right as i remember, the conclusion was that it was deemed illegal. jpr +=+ We should perhaps not overlook the desire expressed in the WBF CoP to encourage "a generous attitude in the exchange of information behind screens". The Director, of course, is not bound by the content of such informalities. He may take such view as he will of the information given. In some instances he may think it could mislead - even if it was not designed to do so. And suppose there was information given to the screenmate that "I am always intending to raise to game at least", is this binding upon the player at his next turn? If we say 'yes', on what basis? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 5 16:44:00 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:44:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <000c01c9e55a$b321bd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be><004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2002DA.3060304@ulb.ac.be> <8CBB26084F2B36D-14E0-2155@WEBMAIL-MZ12.sysops.aol.com><4A270E3C.8040707@talktalk.net><4A278792.4050002@aol.com><001701c9e4ff$5b769020$0302a8c0@Mildred><01594D9C-D601-433B-B09F-0C2FFA9D1672@starpower.net><002101c9e537$aa9d0930$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000c01c9e55a$b321bd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Grattan wrote: >> >>> From: "Eric Landau" >>> >>> +=+ Certainly the player can deceive everybody with his intentions. >>> However, he can be destroyed by an unrimely piece of UI >>> from partner. >> >> Apparently I was not clear in my earlier post, as I certainly didn't >> intend to suggest anything that might in any way be described as >> "deceiv[ing]" anybody. What I hoped to describe is, in my >> experience, common expert practice based on general expert-level >> bridge knowledge, which would be a mutually assumed implicit >> agreement on the part of any two locals sitting down as a first-time >> partnership in the Flight A game. >> >> An auction like 1H-2D-3D (a simpler analog of the thread case) would, >> without discussion, be assumed to show game-invitational or better >> values with heart support. -P-3H-P-4H would be a perfectly normal >> continuation, suggesting that the 3D bidder wanted to insure that >> forcing passes would be in effect over 4H (they would not be after >> 1H-2D-4H), and may also have been contemplating making a slam try >> over some stronger reply than 3H. This agreement might well be >> described at the table as "invitational" to distinguish it from the >> less popular alternative, which would be "game forcing". Nobody >> would doubt that "invitational" was understood to mean "possibly only >> invitational", as it is GBK at this level that all forcing game-try >> sequences are presumptively rather than definitionally invitational. >> This would be no different from calling 1S-P-2S-P-3C a "short suit >> game try" rather than the more literal "short suit game-or-possibly- >> slam try". >> >> In a smooth auction that went 1H-2D-3D-P-3H-P-4H it would not occur >> to anyone to that the 3D/4H bidder had reevaluated his hand and was >> now "accepting his own invitation", as opposed to simply completing a >> two-step sequence to 4H with a hand unsuitable for 1H-2D-4H. I do >> understand that a huddle "between the steps" by partner might give >> cause to suspect that the 4H bid might possibly have represented a >> reevaluation rather than an always-intended "second step", and that >> it might behoove the director to investigate the possibility. But it >> seems awfully harsh to do a full 180 from what would be the natural >> assumption in a smooth auction and presume it so absent positive >> evidence to the contrary, which is how I read Grattan's position. > > +=+ And I understand that. But the word is 'invitational' and > the introduction of UI from partner can destroy the way forward > because thereupon the player may well find himself stuck with the > systemic meaning of the call. Imagine that the 3D bid had been described as "invitational or better, with heart support". Now 4H over a smoothly bid 3H would not be questioned; it merely shows the "or better". But if 3H comes after a huddle, and the 3D bidder then raises, an opponent may question the raise -- "That doesn't look better than an invitation to me" -- and call the TD. It is then up to the TD to decide whether the 4H bidder was "accepting his own invitation" (an infraction given the UI constraints) or just completing a descriptive two-step sequence as intended all along. Calling 3D "invitational" when "invitational or better" is the assumed implicit agreement (as it would be in my milieu without discussion) is technically MI, but, even if not taken for granted, so that the opponents were technically "misled", would likely be harmless in an auction like this one; absent the huddle, the bidder will either produce invitational values after passing or defintively show better than invitational values by raising. In one case (3D correctly described as "invitational or better") we have a potential use of UI. In the other (3D misdecribed as "invitational") we have established but "harmless" MI plus potential use of UI. I argue merely that the "potential use of UI" determination is the same in both cases and should lead to similar rulings, with the separate MI issue not relevant to the TD's finding as to use of UI. It's the same UI in either case. The only question for the TD is whether the 3D bidder definitively holds a hand too good to consider stopping short of game; how 3D was originally described shouldn't matter. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 5 18:38:37 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:38:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:21 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> The TD should not simply ignore an "I was always planning on >> bidding 4H" >> statement. >> >> If the partnership's system is such that the player would always >> bid on with >> that hand in that system, that is relevant. > > Yes, the TD should simply ignore the stated plans of bidding 4H. That > does not mean the TD should ignore the partnership's system. No one > in this thread said that the partnership's system should be ignored. > > We are talking about classic UI cases. The laws do not say, "Oh, > since you were planning to bid 4H, go ahead." The laws do not ask the > player to choose actions from what he was planning. The laws don't > even ask or case about what the player was planning before the UI > appeared. What they require the player to do is to determine what the > UI suggests, and determine the LAs under his system, and not choose > one of the LAs suggested by the UI. Nowhere in this scheme do the > laws ask you to remember what you were planning and just go ahead and > do it. "I was always going to" is the classic phrase players often > use to show that they don't understand what is required of them under > the laws. > > Instead of focusing on your remembered previous intentions when this > kind of situation comes up, please focus on what the UI suggests and > what your LAs are under your system. Consider the case, previously mentioned, of the player who bids 3D while passing a note to his screenmate reading "I am bidding game no matter what". Would you not allow this player to bid 4H without question? If you do, you are obviously not "simply ignor[ing] the stated plans of bidding 4H". You are taking the player at his word, finding that he was definitively planning to bid 4H all along, and so may do so legally, based on incontrovertable proof of his intention. But the law doesn't demand incontrovertable proof, merely the preponderance of the evidence, with the benefit of the doubt given to the NOS. That's a lesser standard, which suggests that there are circumstances short of the production of a timely handwritten note that should convince you that his "stated plans of bidding 4H" should not be ignored. Considered and rejected, perhaps, but considered. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 5 19:55:39 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:55:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:38:37 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:21 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> The TD should not simply ignore an "I was always planning on >>> bidding 4H" >>> statement. >>> >>> If the partnership's system is such that the player would always >>> bid on with >>> that hand in that system, that is relevant. >> >> Yes, the TD should simply ignore the stated plans of bidding 4H. That >> does not mean the TD should ignore the partnership's system. No one >> in this thread said that the partnership's system should be ignored. >> >> We are talking about classic UI cases. The laws do not say, "Oh, >> since you were planning to bid 4H, go ahead." The laws do not ask the >> player to choose actions from what he was planning. The laws don't >> even ask or case about what the player was planning before the UI >> appeared. What they require the player to do is to determine what the >> UI suggests, and determine the LAs under his system, and not choose >> one of the LAs suggested by the UI. Nowhere in this scheme do the >> laws ask you to remember what you were planning and just go ahead and >> do it. "I was always going to" is the classic phrase players often >> use to show that they don't understand what is required of them under >> the laws. >> >> Instead of focusing on your remembered previous intentions when this >> kind of situation comes up, please focus on what the UI suggests and >> what your LAs are under your system. > > Consider the case, previously mentioned, of the player who bids 3D > while passing a note to his screenmate reading "I am bidding game no > matter what". Would you not allow this player to bid 4H without > question? If you do, you are obviously not "simply ignor[ing] the > stated plans of bidding 4H". You are taking the player at his word, > finding that he was definitively planning to bid 4H all along, and so > may do so legally, Legally? I think there are nice things you could say about this, but not that it is legal. Is there some WBFLC opinion that I don't know about? > based on incontrovertable proof of his intention. Intention isn't in the laws. > But the law doesn't demand incontrovertable proof, merely the > preponderance of the evidence, with the benefit of the doubt given to > the NOS. That's a lesser standard, which suggests that there are > circumstances short of the production of a timely handwritten note > that should convince you that his "stated plans of bidding 4H" should > not be ignored. Considered and rejected, perhaps, but considered. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 21:00:58 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:00:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0906051200m36ee5339n109a34bdea5e0ebd@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:21 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> The TD should not simply ignore an "I was always planning on >>> bidding 4H" >>> statement. >>> >>> If the partnership's system is such that the player would always >>> bid on with >>> that hand in that system, that is relevant. >> >> Yes, the TD should simply ignore the stated plans of bidding 4H. ?That >> does not mean the TD should ignore the partnership's system. ?No one >> in this thread said that the partnership's system should be ignored. >> >> We are talking about classic UI cases. ?The laws do not say, "Oh, >> since you were planning to bid 4H, go ahead." ?The laws do not ask the >> player to choose actions from what he was planning. ?The laws don't >> even ask or case about what the player was planning before the UI >> appeared. ?What they require the player to do is to determine what the >> UI suggests, and determine the LAs under his system, and not choose >> one of the LAs suggested by the UI. ?Nowhere in this scheme do the >> laws ask you to remember what you were planning and just go ahead and >> do it. ?"I was always going to" is the classic phrase players often >> use to show that they don't understand what is required of them under >> the laws. >> >> Instead of focusing on your remembered previous intentions when this >> kind of situation comes up, please focus on what the UI suggests and >> what your LAs are under your system. > > Consider the case, previously mentioned, of the player who bids 3D > while passing a note to his screenmate reading "I am bidding game no > matter what". ?Would you not allow this player to bid 4H without > question? ?If you do, you are obviously not "simply ignor[ing] the > stated plans of bidding 4H". ?You are taking the player at his word, > finding that he was definitively planning to bid 4H all along, and so > may do so legally, based on incontrovertable proof of his intention. > But the law doesn't demand incontrovertable proof, merely the > preponderance of the evidence, with the benefit of the doubt given to > the NOS. ?That's a lesser standard, which suggests that there are > circumstances short of the production of a timely handwritten note > that should convince you that his "stated plans of bidding 4H" should > not be ignored. ?Considered and rejected, perhaps, but considered. > Yet again I agree with Robert Frick. Alright, Eric, I can suppose that the director has incontrovertible proof of the player's original intention to bid 4H, his perfect sainthood, and color of his shoes. But they are all equally irrelevant under the laws. The director need not investigate sainthood, shoe color, or intention. UI suggestions and LAs are relevant. Directors are supposed to follow the laws, not change them. The example with the note behind screens is a request for a law change. You would have to make laws about what to do if the player did not follow through on his stated intention, and what happens when there is interference not covered in the note. For example, consider 3H (4C). What options would be now available to the note writer after a very fast or a very slow 3H. If your system contains limit-raise-or-better calls and partner varies his speed in response, you should consider making a change. This is especially true when you have no clear idea what your partner's minimum hand might look like, as in our original case with (1D) P (1NT) 2H. I have submitted four hands as possible 2H calls, and no one has offered yea or nay or any of them. I would especially like to hear from those who think that over 3H there can be no LA to 4H. ------------------------- A really fine director will ignore the intentions of the player and follow the laws---focusing on UI implications and LAs under the system. But he will also try to explain to a player who says "I was always going to..." how fundamentally mistaken he is about what the laws ask him to do. Obviously, there are several posters in this thread who should be on the receiving end of this kind of talk. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 5 22:32:29 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:32:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:38:37 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:21 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> >>>> The TD should not simply ignore an "I was always planning on >>>> bidding 4H" >>>> statement. >>>> >>>> If the partnership's system is such that the player would always >>>> bid on with >>>> that hand in that system, that is relevant. >>> >>> Yes, the TD should simply ignore the stated plans of bidding 4H. >>> That >>> does not mean the TD should ignore the partnership's system. No one >>> in this thread said that the partnership's system should be ignored. >>> >>> We are talking about classic UI cases. The laws do not say, "Oh, >>> since you were planning to bid 4H, go ahead." The laws do not >>> ask the >>> player to choose actions from what he was planning. The laws don't >>> even ask or case about what the player was planning before the UI >>> appeared. What they require the player to do is to determine >>> what the >>> UI suggests, and determine the LAs under his system, and not choose >>> one of the LAs suggested by the UI. Nowhere in this scheme do the >>> laws ask you to remember what you were planning and just go ahead >>> and >>> do it. "I was always going to" is the classic phrase players often >>> use to show that they don't understand what is required of them >>> under >>> the laws. >>> >>> Instead of focusing on your remembered previous intentions when this >>> kind of situation comes up, please focus on what the UI suggests and >>> what your LAs are under your system. >> >> Consider the case, previously mentioned, of the player who bids 3D >> while passing a note to his screenmate reading "I am bidding game no >> matter what". Would you not allow this player to bid 4H without >> question? If you do, you are obviously not "simply ignor[ing] the >> stated plans of bidding 4H". You are taking the player at his word, >> finding that he was definitively planning to bid 4H all along, and so >> may do so legally, > > Legally? I think there are nice things you could say about this, > but not > that it is legal. Is there some WBFLC opinion that I don't know about? What's to not be legal? I could truthfully describe 3D as "presumptively invitational but requiring me to continue to 4H over partner's 3H bid with sufficient extra values, which in our methods could be, for example, ". Given that the bid has already been characterized as "invitational", how is "I am bidding game no matter what" anything other than a shorter way of saying the above? >> based on incontrovertable proof of his intention. > > Intention isn't in the laws. Not per se, but "logical alternative" is. If you have incontrovertably committed yourself in advance of any possible suggestion to the contrary to a hand evaluation that is systemically described by a two-step sequence, you leave yourself no logical alternative to completing the sequence. However it might look to a TD, it cannot be "logical" for a player who has passed an "I am bidding game no matter what" note to his screenmate to then fail to bid game. >> But the law doesn't demand incontrovertable proof, merely the >> preponderance of the evidence, with the benefit of the doubt given to >> the NOS. That's a lesser standard, which suggests that there are >> circumstances short of the production of a timely handwritten note >> that should convince you that his "stated plans of bidding 4H" should >> not be ignored. Considered and rejected, perhaps, but considered. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jun 6 21:45:28 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:45:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification In-Reply-To: <200906051426.n55EQChp004855@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200906051426.n55EQChp004855@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A2AC758.2050300@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > I confirm : L16. If, unexpectedly, UI seems to have affected the ruling > and benn used, I correct the score. How can there be UI in an IB case? L16 explicitly does not apply to the withdrawn call. Of course if the IB'er blurts out what he was thinking, that's L16, but I don't think that's what we're discussing. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 7 12:15:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:15:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification References: <200906051426.n55EQChp004855@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A2AC758.2050300@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002501c9e758$d4c66580$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Floccinaucinihilipilification >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> I confirm : L16. If, unexpectedly, UI seems to have affected the ruling >> and been used, I correct the score. > > How can there be UI in an IB case? L16 explicitly does not apply to the > withdrawn call. > > Of course if the IB'er blurts out what he was thinking, that's L16, but > I don't think that's what we're discussing. < +=+ I agree it is not a question of UI. The question is whether the infraction has assisted the pair to gain an advantage - i.e. that without the infraction the result could "well have been different" - and of course that the NOS is thereby damaged. We are in Law 27D territory. But I think it likely this was what Alain really meant and his reference to UI was merely loose speech. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 7 15:30:47 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:30:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:07:35 -0400, wrote: > > TIME magazine book critic Lev Grossman (April 2nd 2009): > > "Has there ever been a work of literature that couldn't be > improved by adding zombies? Seth Grahame-Smith is the > author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, the premise of > which explains itself: the Bennet family lives in a rural > English village, where their primary concerns are > > a) marrying off their five daughters, and > > b) defending themselves against wave after wave of the > remorseless, relentless walking dead." > > Richard Hills: > >>> Of course, while we are congratulating ourselves on the >>> new improved Lawbook which prevents the ACBL powers-that >>> -be changing immutable Laws, correspondence from another >>> blmler revealed to me that many private bridge club >>> owners in the ACBL-land have no compunction in their >>> remorseless and relentless rewriting of Law 12 and Law >>> 16 to keep all their zombie customers happy with wave >>> after wave of unearned good scores. > > Jeff Easterson: > >> Allow me to take issue with the statement "if they are >> all happy, why make trouble?" This is/can be dangerous. >> Always give both sides a top, then they will be happy. >> We had,some years ago a TD in a European federation who >> almost always gave both pairs 60%. They were always >> happy. In most/many cases the other pairs don't realise >> what has happened and thus are not unhappy either. (If >> they see 60%/60% on the frequencies they assume that it >> was a correct decision.) Ciao, JE > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, private correspondence from another blmler revealed > the House Laws of his local Egdirb Club. Players were > given an incentive to infract Law 16. If their opponents > called the Director, the Egdirb House Laws required a Law > 12 Split Score based on a Split Universe. The players > were assumed to live in Universe A, in which they had not > committed a Law 16 infraction, so they kept their table > score. Meanwhile the opponents were assumed to live in > Universe B, in which they were damaged by the Law 16 > infraction, so they gained a Law 12 adjusted score. > > Meanwhile ethical players were unvaryingly at a score > disadvantage due to them abiding by Law 73C: > > "When a player has available to him unauthorized > information from his partner, such as from a remark, > question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, > inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or > failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any > advantage from that unauthorized information. > * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." Unless someone shows up who thinks feel-good split scores are legal for L16 infractions, we can't argue about that. But there are still potentially interesting issues, methinks, such as what to do in 2018. Giving such scores is wrong, in the sense of not following the laws. A solution for 2018 is to make them legal. There is another sense in which they are wrong. When you give a pair or table points that they don't deserve, you are rewarding them. Ignoring psychological factors, bridge is a zero-sum game. So rewarding some players, and not others, is punishing the other players. This punishment is not right. (Good luck trying to get someone to understand this, though.) The feel-good awards work on the psychological level. The players who are not involved usually don't know of the feel-good award; if they knew, they usually wouldn't understand that they are being punished; if they understood that they were being punished, they usually wouldn't care, because the amount of their punishment is usually small. So everyone is happy, though in a slimy sort of way. However, whenever there is a director error, the director is authorized to give a feel-good split score. Then it is legal, but it is still wrong on this second level. So it is HYPOCRITICAL in the current laws that directors can give feel-good split-scores for their own mistakes and club owners can't give feel-good errors to make people happy when other problems arise. Similarly, when a pair does not play a board, for whatever reason that is not their fault, they should receive a no play (NP), not an A+. An A+ is a feel-good award. The pair has done nothing to be rewarded, and the other pairs have done nothing to be punished. For example, if NS opens the wrong traveller, rendering a board unplayable, it is likely that the awards will be A-/A+, or I once gave A/A+. I think either the A or A- is justifiable for NS, but the A+ for EW is wrong -- they don't deserve a reward and the other competing pairs do not deserving a punishment. So a second possibility for 2018 is to make all feel-good awards clearly illegal. The problem with that is, feel-good scores work on the psychological level of happiness. So there is a real problem with giving them up (as I think it is easier to appreciate if you as director can't give them for your own mistakes). Bob From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 7 16:09:48 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:09:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001101c9e779$a0469890$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> >> Yes, private correspondence from another blmler revealed >> the House Laws of his local Egdirb Club. Players were >> given an incentive to infract Law 16. If their opponents >> called the Director, the Egdirb House Laws required a Law >> 12 Split Score based on a Split Universe. The players >> were assumed to live in Universe A, in which they had not >> committed a Law 16 infraction, so they kept their table >> score. Meanwhile the opponents were assumed to live in >> Universe B, in which they were damaged by the Law 16 >> infraction, so they gained a Law 12 adjusted score. >> >> Meanwhile ethical players were unvaryingly at a score >> disadvantage due to them abiding by Law 73C: >> >> "When a player has available to him unauthorized >> information from his partner, such as from a remark, >> question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, >> inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or >> failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any >> advantage from that unauthorized information. >> * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." > > Unless someone shows up who thinks feel-good split scores > are legal for L16 infractions, we can't argue about that. But > there are still potentially interesting issues, methinks, such as > what to do in 2018. > > Giving such scores is wrong, in the sense of not following > the laws. A solution for 2018 is to make them legal. > +=+ I will give some thought to the 2018 introduction of a provision that when a pair gains an improved score via award by the Director of split scores, all other pairs in the same NS or EW field shall have their total scores identically improved. This should rebut any thought of acting unfairly towards other participants. :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 7 16:49:36 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:49:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c9e779$a0469890$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001101c9e779$a0469890$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:09:48 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "The searcher's eye not seldom > finds more than he wished to find." > [Gotthold Lessing, 1779] > ********************************** >>> >>> Yes, private correspondence from another blmler revealed >>> the House Laws of his local Egdirb Club. Players were >>> given an incentive to infract Law 16. If their opponents >>> called the Director, the Egdirb House Laws required a Law >>> 12 Split Score based on a Split Universe. The players >>> were assumed to live in Universe A, in which they had not >>> committed a Law 16 infraction, so they kept their table >>> score. Meanwhile the opponents were assumed to live in >>> Universe B, in which they were damaged by the Law 16 >>> infraction, so they gained a Law 12 adjusted score. >>> >>> Meanwhile ethical players were unvaryingly at a score >>> disadvantage due to them abiding by Law 73C: >>> >>> "When a player has available to him unauthorized >>> information from his partner, such as from a remark, >>> question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, >>> inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or >>> failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any >>> advantage from that unauthorized information. >>> * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." >> >> Unless someone shows up who thinks feel-good split scores >> are legal for L16 infractions, we can't argue about that. But >> there are still potentially interesting issues, methinks, such as >> what to do in 2018. >> >> Giving such scores is wrong, in the sense of not following >> the laws. A solution for 2018 is to make them legal. >> > +=+ I will give some thought to the 2018 introduction of a > provision that when a pair gains an improved score via award > by the Director of split scores, all other pairs in the same NS > or EW field shall have their total scores identically improved. > This should rebut any thought of acting unfairly towards other > participants. > :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Suppose because of some director error, the pairs both receive A+. If you take NP as the correct award, the pairs themselves are receiving differing amounts of reward. I guess you would take the most points that are given away, then give that to everyone. That would be fairly easy for a computerized system to do. It would have to be given to all pairs whenever there is an overall across fields. So it's cumbersome, but it would be better than the current system and not hypocritical. Could you consider doing the same when a pair is given an A+ because they could not play a board? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 7 17:37:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 16:37:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001101c9e779$a0469890$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001c01c9e785$d879fe30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Unless someone shows up who thinks feel-good split scores >> are legal for L16 infractions, we can't argue about that. But >> there are still potentially interesting issues, methinks, such as >> what to do in 2018. >> >> Giving such scores is wrong, in the sense of not following >> the laws. A solution for 2018 is to make them legal. >> > +=+ I will give some thought to the 2018 introduction of a > provision that when a pair gains an improved score via award > by the Director of split scores, all other pairs in the same NS > or EW field shall have their total scores identically improved. > This should rebut any thought of acting unfairly towards other > participants. > :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ << +=+ Or how about something like this draft (2018) Law 82C: ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1. In no circumstances, other than those that may be the consequence of awards under 2 following, shall the scores of the two sides on a board exceed in aggregate the number of points normally available. (If the Director considers himself required to award a score breaching this requirement he shall award scores instead such as 2 following provides.) 2. If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award each side an adjusted score weighted by reference to the scores obtained in play on that board (excluding any adjusted score). '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' n.b. this is a topic, not advocacy. ~ G ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 8 13:35:16 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:35:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01c9e785$d879fe30$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001101c9e779$a0469890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001c01c9e785$d879fe30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:37:16 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "The searcher's eye not seldom > finds more than he wished to find." > [Gotthold Lessing, 1779] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:09 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >>> >>> Unless someone shows up who thinks feel-good split scores >>> are legal for L16 infractions, we can't argue about that. But >>> there are still potentially interesting issues, methinks, such as >>> what to do in 2018. >>> >>> Giving such scores is wrong, in the sense of not following >>> the laws. A solution for 2018 is to make them legal. >>> >> +=+ I will give some thought to the 2018 introduction of a >> provision that when a pair gains an improved score via award >> by the Director of split scores, all other pairs in the same NS >> or EW field shall have their total scores identically improved. >> This should rebut any thought of acting unfairly towards other >> participants. >> :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > << > +=+ Or how about something like this draft (2018) Law 82C: > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > 1. In no circumstances, other than those that may be the > consequence of awards under 2 following, shall the > scores of the two sides on a board exceed in aggregate > the number of points normally available. (If the Director > considers himself required to award a score breaching > this requirement he shall award scores instead such as > 2 following provides.) > 2. If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently > determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will > allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award > each side an adjusted score weighted by reference to > the scores obtained in play on that board (excluding > any adjusted score). > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > n.b. this is a topic, not advocacy. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml I think the parenthetical remark will undo what the first sentence of #1 says. The logic will be that there must be times when the director feels required to give the table more than the normal aggregate of scores. What are those times? Well, maybe a close L16 decision? Bridge clubs are businesses, trying to make money. The entry fee for a pair at a day game where I direct would be $26. Out of that goes money to the ACBL ($3), for lunch, for a director, and rent for the building. So they want to keep their customers happy. And that's good, right? The whole point of the laws presumably is to have happy bridge players. So they are tempted to give feel-good awards, especially if they think nearby clubs are giving feel-good awards. And you are countering tradition. So if you want to eliminate feel-good awards, I think you can't allow any loopholes. From bobpark at consolidated.net Mon Jun 8 15:45:08 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:45:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001101c9e779$a0469890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001c01c9e785$d879fe30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A2D15E4.7060802@consolidated.net> Robert Frick wrote: > > I think the parenthetical remark will undo what the first sentence of #1 > says. The logic will be that there must be times when the director feels > required to give the table more than the normal aggregate of scores. What > are those times? Well, maybe a close L16 decision? > > Bridge clubs are businesses, trying to make money. The entry fee for a > pair at a day game where I direct would be $26. Out of that goes money to > the ACBL ($3), for lunch, for a director, and rent for the building. So > they want to keep their customers happy. And that's good, right? The whole > point of the laws presumably is to have happy bridge players. > > So they are tempted to give feel-good awards, especially if they think > nearby clubs are giving feel-good awards. And you are countering > tradition. So if you want to eliminate feel-good awards, I think you can't > allow any loopholes. > $26 per pair! Wow! No wonder you want to keep them happy. FWIW, our local clubs charge $12/pair max...some only $10. From geller at nifty.com Mon Jun 8 16:08:43 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:08:43 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200906081408.AA19143@geller204.nifty.com> Robert Frick writes: >For example, if NS opens the wrong traveller, rendering a board >unplayable, it is likely that the awards will be A-/A+, or I once gave >A/A+. I think either the A or A- is justifiable for NS, but the A+ for EW >is wrong -- they don't deserve a reward and the other competing pairs do >not deserving a punishment. There is a sensible (IMO) option not presently allowed by the Laws that ought to be added. Give NS A- , but strike the board from play altogether as far as EW are concerned and factorize EW's score on the other boards. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 8 16:12:31 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:12:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0906051200m36ee5339n109a34bdea5e0ebd@mail.gmail.com> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906051200m36ee5339n109a34bdea5e0ebd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <07880421-673F-43EF-9F9A-4C03BD7F4BC9@starpower.net> On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > If your system contains limit-raise-or-better calls and partner varies > his speed in response, you should consider making a change. This is > especially true when you have no clear idea what your partner's > minimum hand might look like, as in our original case with (1D) P > (1NT) 2H. I have submitted four hands as possible 2H calls, and no > one has offered yea or nay or any of them. I would especially like to > hear from those who think that over 3H there can be no LA to 4H. If it were only my system at issue, I wouldn't be all that concerned. But bidding like this is standard expert practice in ACBLland, the sort of thing one assumes with a new partner without having to discuss it. One of our local bridge publications ("District 6 Table Talk") runs a regular column (moderated by Steve Robinson) devoted to topics in bidding theory, in which experts from throughout the ACBL are invited to participate. The latest issue takes up the subject of "What's a Forcing Pass?" Some excerpts: Billy Eisenberg: "If you have an opportunity to create a force and don't, then it's non-forcing." John Carruthers: "If we voluntarily bid a game, they save, our pass is forcing [e]xcept if... the hand that bid game jumped to it when it had a clear, strength-showing bid below game to say it was our hand and create a forcing situation." Drew Casen: "a few situations that set up a force: - We cue bid their suit on the way to game....a few that do NOT [emphasis his] set up a force:... - We jump to game when we could have cue bid." Larry Mori: "if we have a chance to show ownership of the hand in a competitive auction, the pass would be forcing. This means that if we could have made a cue bid (before) raising to game as opposed to jumping to game... one would show strength and the other would be distributional or a positional bid." Russ Ekeblad: "In ANY [emphasis his] competitive auction, if advancer has room to cue bid... and chooses not to do so, it NEVER creates a force. Example: They open 1S-2H-2S [sic] and we bid 4H.... Advancer must bid 3S 'on the way' to create a force. > A really fine director will ignore the intentions of the player and > follow the laws---focusing on UI implications and LAs under the > system." I don't agree. The player's stated intention may "self-serving evidence" but it is still evidence. It should, of course, be heavily discounted, but should not be entirely ignored. In real life, it gets weighed against the evidence of the director's, committee's and pollees' evaluation of the hand, plus the evidence provided by the bidder's system (his prior and alternative calls). It cannot be right to constrain a player to stop short of game after partner's huddle just because his earlier call is systemically appropriate with invitational values; you must find that "a significant proportion of such players, or whom it is judged some might select it" might treat the hand as not worth more than a game try on the auction so far, playing the bidder's methods. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 8 16:17:03 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:17:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001101c9e779$a0469890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001c01c9e785$d879fe30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A2D1D5F.2040000@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I think the parenthetical remark will undo what the first sentence of #1 > says. The logic will be that there must be times when the director feels > required to give the table more than the normal aggregate of scores. What > are those times? Well, maybe a close L16 decision? > > Bridge clubs are businesses, trying to make money. The entry fee for a > pair at a day game where I direct would be $26. Out of that goes money to > the ACBL ($3), for lunch, for a director, and rent for the building. So > they want to keep their customers happy. And that's good, right? The whole > point of the laws presumably is to have happy bridge players. > > AG : what I don't understand is that you believe that giving those "awards" is a way to make players happy. First, it will constitute a bonus to TD calls, hence increase their number. Second, it gives the impression that the TD is unable to know who's right and that the laws don't provide the answer- hardly the right message. But above all, lawyering will be rewarded. And, with reference to "close L16 cases", the answer is obvious in TFLB : if it's close (i.e. you can't prove it), then don't adjust. (perhaps that's wrong, but that's another story) Best regards Alain From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 8 18:58:28 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 11:58:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c9e779$a0469890$0302a8c0@Mildred><001c01c9e785$d879fe30$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001101c9e779$a0469890$0302a8c0@Mildred><001c01c9e785$d879fe30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Frick" Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 06:35 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:37:16 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ********************************** >> "The searcher's eye not seldom >> finds more than he wished to find." >> [Gotthold Lessing, 1779] >> ********************************** >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Grattan" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:09 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>> Unless someone shows up who thinks feel-good split scores >>>> are legal for L16 infractions, we can't argue about that. But >>>> there are still potentially interesting issues, methinks, such as >>>> what to do in 2018. >>>> >>>> Giving such scores is wrong, in the sense of not following >>>> the laws. A solution for 2018 is to make them legal. >>>> >>> +=+ I will give some thought to the 2018 introduction of a >>> provision that when a pair gains an improved score via award >>> by the Director of split scores, all other pairs in the same NS >>> or EW field shall have their total scores identically improved. >>> This should rebut any thought of acting unfairly towards other >>> participants. >>> :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> << >> +=+ Or how about something like this draft (2018) Law 82C: >> >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> 1. In no circumstances, other than those that may be the >> consequence of awards under 2 following, shall the >> scores of the two sides on a board exceed in aggregate >> the number of points normally available. (If the Director >> considers himself required to award a score breaching >> this requirement he shall award scores instead such as >> 2 following provides.) >> 2. If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently >> determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will >> allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award >> each side an adjusted score weighted by reference to >> the scores obtained in play on that board (excluding >> any adjusted score). >> >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> n.b. this is a topic, not advocacy. >> ~ G ~ +=+ > I think the parenthetical remark will undo what the first sentence of #1 > says. The logic will be that there must be times when the director feels > required to give the table more than the normal aggregate of scores. What > are those times? Well, maybe a close L16 decision? > > Bridge clubs are businesses, trying to make money. The entry fee for a > pair at a day game where I direct would be $26. Out of that goes money to > the ACBL ($3), for lunch, for a director, and rent for the building. So > they want to keep their customers happy. And that's good, right? The whole > point of the laws presumably is to have happy bridge players. > > So they are tempted to give feel-good awards, especially if they think > nearby clubs are giving feel-good awards. And you are countering > tradition. So if you want to eliminate feel-good awards, I think you can't > allow any loopholes. Just a contemporaneous eyewitness report concerning the TD keeping the players happy. Last week I was present when the following occurred: E S W N --- --- --- P* --- 2C** *= hasty, notably prior to anyone else examining their cards **= BOOT It may be notable that S asserted that she saw E call prior to 2C [which would not be supported by the fact that E had not moved a muscle]. Anyway, after significant reluctance W called for the TD. The TD read from the book and ruled- upon which S protested. The TD then read from a different part of the book and ruled- upon which S protested. The TD then read from the book and ruled that the BOOT not accepted option was taken it was E's turn. Eventually the 2C bidding card was returned to the box and E passed. The TD ruled that 2C must be repeated and that N must pass this round. And then left. The resulting contract was 2C-S making 9 tricks. However, during the middle of the next hand the TD interrupted to inform the table to call her back. Upon returning it was ruled that an adjusted score would be awarded at the end of the game. E protested that the adjusted score should be given forthwith. Where it was then ruled that the adjusted score would not be determined until all of the scores had been examined. After the game the adjusted score was determined to be NS +180 EW-180. Perhaps it should be noted that this was particularly favorable to NS and particularly unfavorable to EW. However, NS appealed as they wanted the most favorable score conceivable which was the outcome of the appeal- 3N-S NS+400 EW-400. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 9 03:57:18 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:57:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A277534.1010109@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: [snip] >Are you telling me it is unclear what this hand is worth? Richard Hills responds: Yes. It is unclear what almost any hand is worth. As The Bridge World's Master Solvers Club demonstrates, different players evaluate different factors. For example, after: LHO Pard RHO You Pass Pass 3D ? S AJxx H KQx D --- C AKJTxx Karel evaluated the hand as an obvious Double, and Karel thought that a leap to 6C was ridiculous; while I evaluated the hand as an obvious leap to 6C, and I thought that Double was ridiculous. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 9 05:00:00 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:00:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy In-Reply-To: <200906081808.n58I8k6m014345@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200906081808.n58I8k6m014345@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A2DD030.2080201@nhcc.net> > From: "Roger Pewick" > E S W N > --- --- --- P* > --- 2C** > > *= hasty, notably prior to anyone else examining their cards > **= BOOT So what is the correct ruling, and how do we get there now? (I'm assuming 2C was strong and artificial, and thus there is no "denomination shown.") If West accepts the BOOT or if East passes, it's easy, but what if neither of those happy events occurs? I can see there will be lead penalties if EW declare, and I can guess what the rest of the correct ruling should be, but it isn't clear to me exactly what route we take to get there. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 04:32:20 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 21:32:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0906081932o74878620s83414ff40de53a9b@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > If you have > incontrovertably committed yourself in advance of any possible > suggestion to the contrary to a hand evaluation that is systemically > described by a two-step sequence, you leave yourself no logical > alternative to completing the sequence. ?However it might look to a > TD, it cannot be "logical" for a player who has passed an "I am > bidding game no matter what" note to his screenmate to then fail to > bid game. The word "logical" appears in the laws six times, always in the form "logical alternative." The term is defined in law 16B1b1, so it is improper to try to use any common meaning of "logical" understand the whole term. It is just as improper to say that X is not a logical alternative because X is not logical to your plans as it is to say that penguin Y is not an emperor penguin because it is not an emperor. The term "logical alternative" can only properly used as whole, with this definition: [Law 16B1b:] "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." The definition says nothing about what pieces of paper you passed on to other players. It says nothing about your incontrovertible intentions. Look at the definition carefully, and I think you will see that varying your writing or incontroverible intentions has no effect on the calls that are deemed to be logical alternatives. I think Grattan would agree with this. Grattan? Eric, it appears, wants a new phrase added to the definition that might go something like this: "Regardless of the foregoing, if a player's plans are incontrovertibly established, then his plans are deemed his only logical alternative, and he can carry out with that plan without penalty." A few days ago listed problems with this idea, but to no response. The main problem with Eric's interpretation is that there is no trace of importance given to a player's intentions in defining LA right now. There is no trace of a mention of a player's plans in defining LA. His system, yes; his plans, no, even if incontrovertible. Counterintuitive? Obviously. Postal chess players might be baffled by this aspect of the laws. But there nothing about a player's intentions that affects the set of calls that are deemed LAs. Therefore, as a matter of simple logic on reading law 16B1b, a player's intentions should be ignored when determining LAs. His system must be carefully understood, but not his intentions. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 05:52:47 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:52:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <07880421-673F-43EF-9F9A-4C03BD7F4BC9@starpower.net> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906051200m36ee5339n109a34bdea5e0ebd@mail.gmail.com> <07880421-673F-43EF-9F9A-4C03BD7F4BC9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0906082052j27aa955dk658d454d01b08586@mail.gmail.com> First, Eric wrote lots of examples of forcing-pass agreements, but I don't see his point. Perhaps I am dense. Was he listing methods that very good players choose to play where a slow signoff could convey UI? I agree that they do this. Maybe their partners generally respond with perfect uniform tempo, or maybe they haven't thought about the UI implications, or maybe they convince the TDs something or other to their advantage. Earlier, I wrote "A really fine director will ignore the intentions of the player and follow the laws---focusing on UI implications and LAs under the system." To that, Eric Landau responded: > > I don't agree. ?The player's stated intention may "self-serving > evidence" but it is still evidence. Where in Law 16B1b does a player's original intentions matter for determining LAs? Are you making up your own laws here, or are you following the rule book? Are you just going by your common sense and ignoring the definition of LAs in law 16B1b? I am really curious about how see your position relative to the laws. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 9 07:12:03 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:12:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47BD31449C124A9C8CB7EABBFFD1BFCF@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: David Bodanis, A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation, p 45 "Maxwell, however, quite lacked any ability to get a timely start to the day. (When he was told that there was mandatory 6 a.m. chapel at Cambridge University, the story goes that he took a deep breath, and said, 'Aye, I suppose that I can stay up that late.')" Marv asked: >I still need to know whether the notice of the UI and the "reserve >the right" must go together. That is, can you remark on the UI and >say nothing more, or just "reserve the right" without saying why, >or must they go together, nearly simultaneous? > >This may have been answered before, but I was out of town for a >while. Law 16B1(a): After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed). Richard responds: In my opinion, the Law 16B2 "such information" is a direct reference to the Law 16B1(a) "player makes available to his partner extraneous information that suggests a call or play". So one does not "reserve the right to summon the Director" if Bertie extraneously orders a cup of coffee from Jeeves; but reserving one's right would be appropriate if Bertie had instead extraneously asked, "Does your aunt's 1C opening bid really and truly promise clubs?" Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Tue Jun 9 07:49:44 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 07:49:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0906082052j27aa955dk658d454d01b08586@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0906082052j27aa955dk658d454d01b08586@mail.gmail.com> <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906051200m36ee5339n109a34bdea5e0ebd@mail.gmail.com> <07880421-673F-43EF-9F9A-4C03BD7F4BC9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <26920678.1244526584172.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > First, Eric wrote lots of examples of forcing-pass agreements, but I > don't see his point. Perhaps I am dense. The point is that playing Eric's methods, where an overcall at the two level is sound, advancer's hand was always a game force, and bidding 3D is the only method to show that game force, because a direct raise to 4H is preemptive. My overcalls at the two level are way more aggressive than Eric's, and I still think advancer's hand is a game force. Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 9 07:56:13 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:56:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0906042139h61288ef6ge586951988caf02a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: LHO (dealer) Pard RHO You 1D Pass 1NT ? Jerry Fusselman asked: >Anyone care to speculate whether the following hands would be good >enough for 2H at matchpoints, none vul? > >(A) > >Q853 >AJ9642 >32 >2 Richard Hills responds: Since my methods use weak jumps and medium-sound overcalls, with hand (A) my logical alternatives are Pass and 3H. Jerry Fusselman asked: >(B) > >Q75 >KQJ964 >97 >62 Richard Hills responds: With (B) my only logical alternative is a weak jump to 3H. Jerry Fusselman asked: >(C) > >873 >AKQ94 >743 >96 Richard Hills responds: With (C) my only logical alternative is Pass. I have a great lead against 1NT; why push them back to 3D? Jerry Fusselman asked: >(D) > >854 >KQJ42 >9 >9843 Richard Hills responds: With (D) again my only logical alternative is Pass, since immediate action could get pard too excited. Jerry Fusselman noted: >None of these will achieve game with the original hand (the 3D >raiser) under study: > >K62 >T8753 >AJT5 >K Richard Hills quibbles: And none of these qualify as 2H overcalls in my methods. Of course, my methods and Jerry's methods are irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the actual 2H overcaller sometimes overcalls ridiculously light and sub-minimum, sometimes overcalls with a useful minimum, and with both types of hands the actual 2H overcaller responds 3H to a 3D enquiry. But the actual 2H overcaller lets pard know about the useful minimum by a judicious break in tempo before responding 3H. Opposite a 2H overcaller who is sometimes ridiculously light and sub-minimum, Jerry correctly assesses that a Pass of 3H is a logical alternative. If, on the other hand, the 2H overcaller is a conservative soul who always holds at least a useful minimum, and if the 3D enquirer is not Walter the Walrus, then the only logical alternative is for the 3D enquirer to rebid 4H, so then it is irrelevant whether the 3H rebid took five seconds or fifty seconds. 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 Jun 9 08:32:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:32:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] And in the darkness bind them [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Ash nazg durbatul?k, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatul?k, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Grattan Endicott: [snip] > And suppose there was information given to the screenmate >that "I am always intending to raise to game at least", is this >binding upon the player at his next turn? If we say 'yes', on >what basis? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 80B2(e): "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens - provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied)." Richard Hills: Technically, announcing one's next call to one's screenmate is a call out of turn. As part of screen regulations, the Tournament Organizer could define a variation of the rectification for such a call out of turn (since it was not transmitted across the screen) as being a binding requirement to make that call out of turn (if still legal) when the player is next due to call. A difficulty with this approach is that such an announced call out of turn is by definition an intentional infraction, contrary to Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." 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 Jun 9 08:32:33 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:32:33 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs References: Message-ID: > Marv asked: > >>I still need to know whether the notice of the UI and the "reserve >>the right" must go together. That is, can you remark on the UI and >>say nothing more, or just "reserve the right" without saying why, >>or must they go together, nearly simultaneous? >> >>This may have been answered before, but I was out of town for a >>while. > I didn't make myself clear, evidently. Here are three possible choices when UI is created, other than the null choice of ignoring it at the time. Let's say it's a very speedy double: 1. "That double seemed rather fast." (saying nothing more) 2. "That double seemed rather fast, and we may need the Director at end of play." 3. "We may need the Director at end of play" (not saying why). I am saying in the UI guide that 1 and 3 are not proper, leaving 2 as the only choice if the UI is not ignored at the time. I think this is what L16B2 is saying. Am I wrong? After using 2, there is no further conversation about the UI. If the opponents want to deny it, I am not going to tell them they should call the TD. It's not up to me to teach opponents about the Laws. So I just say, "Let's continue with the deal, please." I do not call the TD myself until the end of play unless the opponents' behavior becomes objectionable. Some BLML TDs simply can't accept this way of dealing with UI, I don't know why. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 9 09:17:38 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:17:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A2D1D5F.2040000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asserted: [snip] >And, with reference to "close L16 cases", the answer is obvious in >TFLB : if it's close (i.e. you can't prove it), then don't adjust. >(perhaps that's wrong, but that's another story) Richard Hills quibbles: "Obvious" answer? Not necessarily so. If it is "obvious" that a Law 16 infraction has occurred, but it is a "close" decision as to whether or not the non-offending side have been damaged, so it is a "close" decision whether or not to apply a Law 12 adjustment, then the relevant and "obvious" part of TFLB is this first sentence of Law 84D: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side." 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 Tue Jun 9 09:19:17 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:19:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0906082052j27aa955dk658d454d01b08586@mail.gmail.com> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906051200m36ee5339n109a34bdea5e0ebd@mail.gmail.com> <07880421-673F-43EF-9F9A-4C03BD7F4BC9@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0906082052j27aa955dk658d454d01b08586@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A2E0CF5.7080006@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > > Where in Law 16B1b does a player's original intentions matter for > determining LAs? Are you making up your own laws here, or are you > following the rule book? AG : I would say this is in the spirit of the law. If a player has made up his mind that, for example, he'll take out his partner's double, no matter how quick or slow, in order to make a slam try, then there is no LA to taking it out. That is, no other player in this situation (of having decided to pull) would think about doing anything else than pull. If the player somehow stated he would do so /in tempore non suspecto/, then we have evidence that there was indeed no LA. Best regards Alain > Are you just going by your common sense and > ignoring the definition of LAs in law 16B1b? I am really curious > about how see your position relative to the laws. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 9 09:28:47 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:28:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A2E0F2F.30201@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > LHO (dealer) Pard RHO You > 1D Pass 1NT ? > > > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > >> Anyone care to speculate whether the following hands would be good >> enough for 2H at matchpoints, none vul? >> >> (A) >> >> Q853 >> AJ9642 >> 32 >> 2 >> > > AG : I would bid 2H with this hand, on general grounds of being aggressive with 6421 shape, but of course it can't be partner's hand (how many clubs do they hold ?) and remark that if I have 12 minors in lieu of 21, game is quite playable. If you told me that you would next bid 3H with 21 and 4H with 12, I wouldn't believe you. In fact, one of the main reasons for the 4H bid is that partner is overvhelmingly likely, hesitation or not, to have a singleton diamond, if any. I would perhaps be more afraid of finding Jxxx - AJxxxx - void - Qxx. > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > >> (B) >> >> Q75 >> KQJ964 >> 97 >> 62 >> > > AG : surely not with this pack of losers. And I'm known as an aggressive overcaller. >> (C) >> >> 873 >> AKQ94 >> 743 >> 96 >> > > AG : do snakes make pushups ? > > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > >> (D) >> >> 854 >> KQJ42 >> 9 >> 9843 >> > > AG : same question. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 9 09:35:17 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:35:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A2E10B5.8000604@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > t. > > What is relevant is whether the actual 2H overcaller sometimes > overcalls ridiculously light and sub-minimum, sometimes overcalls > with a useful minimum, and with both types of hands the actual 2H > overcaller responds 3H to a 3D enquiry. But the actual 2H overcaller > lets pard know about the useful minimum by a judicious break in tempo > before responding 3H. Opposite a 2H overcaller who is sometimes > ridiculously light and sub-minimum, Jerry correctly assesses that a > Pass of 3H is a logical alternative. > > If, on the other hand, the 2H overcaller is a conservative soul who > always holds at least a useful minimum, and if the 3D enquirer is not > Walter the Walrus, then the only logical alternative is for the 3D > enquirer to rebid 4H, so then it is irrelevant whether the 3H rebid > took five seconds or fifty seconds. > AG : .you said it. And, speaking of useful minima, I use Culbertson's rule in a systematic way, so the 4H bid is obvious to me. If the 3D bidder is known as a supporter of said rule, then there is no LA for this player's peers - other expoundents of said rule. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 9 09:50:03 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:50:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] And in the darkness bind them [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A2E142B.4080903@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Ash nazg durbatul?k, ash nazg gimbatul, > ash nazg thrakatul?k, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. > > Old East-Semitic, or one of Tolkien's inventions ? > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > > >> And suppose there was information given to the screenmate >> that "I am always intending to raise to game at least", is this >> binding upon the player at his next turn? If we say 'yes', on >> what basis? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Law 80B2(e): > > "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: > to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance > with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for > example, play with screens - provisions for rectification of > actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied)." > > Richard Hills: > > Technically, announcing one's next call to one's screenmate is a > call out of turn. As part of screen regulations, the Tournament > Organizer could define a variation of the rectification for such > a call out of turn (since it was not transmitted across the > screen) as being a binding requirement to make that call out of > turn (if still legal) when the player is next due to call. > > A difficulty with this approach is that such an announced call > out of turn is by definition an intentional infraction, contrary > to Law 72B1: > > AG : I'd say it ceases to be an infraction if the CoC specify it is legal. Laws like 80B2(e) give OBs a limited power to redefine some infractions. For example, correct wordings according to L19 cease to be correct when using BBs. And using some conventions isn't defined as illegal in TFLB, but OBs are empowered to declare them illegal. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 9 09:55:16 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:55:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A2E1564.3000109@ulb.ac.be> Marvin L French a ?crit : >> Marv asked: >> >> >>> I still need to know whether the notice of the UI and the "reserve >>> the right" must go together. That is, can you remark on the UI and >>> say nothing more, or just "reserve the right" without saying why, >>> or must they go together, nearly simultaneous? >>> >>> This may have been answered before, but I was out of town for a >>> while. >>> > I didn't make myself clear, evidently. Here are three possible > choices when UI is created, other than the null choice of ignoring > it at the time. Let's say it's a very speedy double: > > 1. "That double seemed rather fast." (saying nothing more) > > 2. "That double seemed rather fast, and we may need the Director at > end of play." > > 3. "We may need the Director at end of play" (not saying why). > > I am saying in the UI guide that 1 and 3 are not proper, leaving 2 > as the only choice if the UI is not ignored at the time. I think > this is what L16B2 is saying. Am I wrong? > AG 1. is surely improper, according to L74C4. Usually, 3 won't be problematic, as everybody will know why. > After using 2, there is no further conversation about the UI. If the > opponents want to deny it, I am not going to tell them they should > call the TD. AG : do you read that in TFLB ? I prefer the following formulation : 'Do we agree that there was a very fast double, just in case ?' and if they deny it, I'm calling the TD myself, if only to make *his* life easier. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 9 09:56:49 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:56:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A2E15C1.4070703@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner asserted: > > [snip] > > >> And, with reference to "close L16 cases", the answer is obvious in >> TFLB : if it's close (i.e. you can't prove it), then don't adjust. >> (perhaps that's wrong, but that's another story) >> > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > "Obvious" answer? Not necessarily so. If it is "obvious" that a > Law 16 infraction has occurred, but it is a "close" decision as to > whether or not the non-offending side have been damaged AG : I meant : close as to whether or not there was usable UI. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 9 10:48:50 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:48:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] And in the darkness bind them [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A2E142B.4080903@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A2E142B.4080903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A2E21F2.3000404@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Ash nazg durbatul?k, ash nazg gimbatul, >> ash nazg thrakatul?k, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. >> >> > Old East-Semitic, or one of Tolkien's inventions ? > The latter. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 9 10:49:30 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:49:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs References: <4A2E1564.3000109@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <006001c9e8e0$5c0a0a50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs Marvin L French a ?crit : >> Marv asked: >> >> I still need to know whether the notice of the UI and the "reserve the right" must go together. That is, can you remark on the UI and say nothing more, or just "reserve the right" without saying why, or must they go together, nearly simultaneous? >>> +=+ The only situation I recall in which the laws countenance reservation of rights is when a player believes an opponent has received UI from partner as Law 16B2 describes. So a reservation of rights indicates that such is the case. To remark upon the UI without reservation of rights draws attention to an irregularity and Law 9B1(a) applies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 9 10:57:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:57:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com><18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net><2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906081932o74878620s83414ff40de53a9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006101c9e8e0$5c34eae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling The word "logical" appears in the laws six times, always in the form "logical alternative." The term is defined in law 16B1b1, so it is improper to try to use any common meaning of "logical" understand the whole term. It is just as improper to say that X is not a logical alternative because X is not logical to your plans as it is to say that penguin Y is not an emperor penguin because it is not an emperor. The term "logical alternative" can only properly used as whole, with this definition: +=+ I would think that saying the action is 'not logical' could be a way of saying that it is not an action that would be considered seriously by a significant proportion of players of the class in question, using the methods of the partnership." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 9 11:14:00 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:14:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <006101c9e8e0$5c34eae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com><18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net><2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906081932o74878620s83414ff40de53a9b@mail.gmail.com> <006101c9e8e0$5c34eae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A2E27D8.2020301@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "The searcher's eye not seldom > finds more than he wished to find." > [Gotthold Lessing, 1779] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:32 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > > The word "logical" appears in the laws six times, always in > the form "logical alternative." The term is defined in law > 16B1b1, so it is improper to try to use any common meaning > of "logical" understand the whole term. It is just as improper > to say that X is not a logical alternative because X is not > logical to your plans as it is to say that penguin Y is not an > emperor penguin because it is not an emperor. > So you're stating that 'logical alternative' doesn't mean 'alternative that's logical'. (French-speaking people may think 'chauve-souris') On which basis ? Not that I would consider you to be wrong ; I just wish I could explain other people why it's so. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 9 11:27:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:27:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com><18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net><2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906081932o74878620s83414ff40de53a9b@mail.gmail.com><006101c9e8e0$5c34eae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A2E27D8.2020301@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <019a01c9e8e4$7f0e2230$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "The searcher's eye not seldom > finds more than he wished to find." > [Gotthold Lessing, 1779] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:32 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > > The word "logical" appears in the laws six times, always in > the form "logical alternative." The term is defined in law > 16B1b1, so it is improper to try to use any common meaning > of "logical" understand the whole term. It is just as improper > to say that X is not a logical alternative because X is not > logical to your plans as it is to say that penguin Y is not an > emperor penguin because it is not an emperor. > So you're stating that 'logical alternative' doesn't mean 'alternative that's logical'. (French-speaking people may think 'chauve-souris') On which basis ? Not that I would consider you to be wrong ; I just wish I could explain other people why it's so. Best regards Alain +=+ This reads as though it were a question to me, but I am not inclined to say what Jerry has in mind with the words you quote. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 9 13:00:59 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:00:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0906081932o74878620s83414ff40de53a9b@mail.gmail.com> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906081932o74878620s83414ff40de53a9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A2E40EB.6040508@skynet.be> Jerry is completely right when he states that: Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > The word "logical" appears in the laws six times, always in the form > "logical alternative." The term is defined in law 16B1b1, so it is > improper to try to use any common meaning of "logical" understand the > whole term. > > [Law 16B1b:] "A logical alternative action is one that, among the > class of players > in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given > serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom > it is judged some might select it." > > The definition says nothing about what pieces of paper you passed on > to other players. It says nothing about your incontrovertible > intentions. Look at the definition carefully, and I think you will > see that varying your writing or incontroverible intentions has no > effect on the calls that are deemed to be logical alternatives. I > think Grattan would agree with this. Grattan? > And as such, a statement "I will always bid ..." even when uttered in tempo non-suspecto does not in any way alter the nature of the logical alternatives. HOWEVER, the statement "this bid can be made on values judged sufficient to bid on even over a partner showing a minimum" is a statement which can be used as evidence towards a particular system. If that evidence is accepted, then the judgement issue disappears, since the term LA does include a statement about "playing the same system". What I'm trying to say is that by writing to one's screenmate, one can give clues as to what the system is, and that system must be used when judging the further actions of the player. One further note about the practice of writing down one's intentions behind screens. I used above the words "in tempo non-suspecto". That is, very often, not the case. The time needed to take a pencil and write down the intention is often sufficient to realise that the tray is not coming back within the normal tempo, and one is already protecting oneself against a probable TD call, no longer against a possible one. If one is going to make a call, knowing one is going to bid on, one should write the note (as an explanation of the call itself) before passing the tray (as N or S even before allowing screenmate to call!). Herman. From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Jun 9 14:29:49 2009 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:29:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <4A2E40EB.6040508@skynet.be> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906081932o74878620s83414ff40de53a9b@mail.gmail.com> <4A2E40EB.6040508@skynet.be> Message-ID: I must have missed the thread - but in my simplistic world you are not entitled to pass extra information about your hand to a screen mate they are not entitled to. (eg) Making an apparent trial bid but with the full intention of bidding on is fine. Your screen mate should only get the information trial bid or invitational plus or whatever. You cant cover yourself here with a "I'm always bidding game btw" - either the hand is worth a move over a signoff / pause from pd or it isnt. If it is questionable, dont bid the trial bid, find some other bid or just bid game. If your screenmate knows you will bid game or more they have extra information their partners dont. Say they decide to jam the bidding with a pre-emptive bid. (a) their pd's might consider this non pre-emptive as the trial bid has only created a forcing situation to below game (b) The opponents are now in a situaton they may not have been as your screenmate may have passed the trial bid (c) Pd is under far more pressure. All due to information the screenmate is not entitled to K. On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Jerry is completely right when he states that: > > Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >> The word "logical" appears in the laws six times, always in the form >> "logical alternative." ?The term is defined in law 16B1b1, so it is >> improper to try to use any common meaning of "logical" understand the >> whole term. >> >> [Law 16B1b:] "A logical alternative action is one that, among the >> class of players >> in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given >> serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom >> it is judged some might select it." >> >> The definition says nothing about what pieces of paper you passed on >> to other players. ?It says nothing about your incontrovertible >> intentions. ?Look at the definition carefully, and I think you will >> see that varying your writing or incontroverible intentions has no >> effect on the calls that are deemed to be logical alternatives. ?I >> think Grattan would agree with this. ?Grattan? >> > > And as such, a statement "I will always bid ..." even when uttered in > tempo non-suspecto does not in any way alter the nature of the logical > alternatives. > > HOWEVER, the statement "this bid can be made on values judged sufficient > to bid on even over a partner showing a minimum" is a statement which > can be used as evidence towards a particular system. If that evidence is > accepted, then the judgement issue disappears, since the term LA does > include a statement about "playing the same system". > > What I'm trying to say is that by writing to one's screenmate, one can > give clues as to what the system is, and that system must be used when > judging the further actions of the player. > > One further note about the practice of writing down one's intentions > behind screens. I used above the words "in tempo non-suspecto". That is, > very often, not the case. The time needed to take a pencil and write > down the intention is often sufficient to realise that the tray is not > coming back within the normal tempo, and one is already protecting > oneself against a probable TD call, no longer against a possible one. > > If one is going to make a call, knowing one is going to bid on, one > should write the note (as an explanation of the call itself) before > passing the tray (as N or S even before allowing screenmate to call!). > > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 9 14:56:19 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:56:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906081932o74878620s83414ff40de53a9b@mail.gmail.com> <4A2E40EB.6040508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A2E5BF3.4060609@skynet.be> Karel, despite his dutch name, is a native English speaker, so it surprises me he fails to understand the nuances of the words entitled and allowed: Karel wrote: > I must have missed the thread - but in my simplistic world you are not > entitled to pass extra information about your hand to a screen mate > they are not entitled to. > The first "entitled" is, IMHO, wrong. It should be "allowed". And then it sounds awful. Why should you not be allowed to tell your opponents more than they are entitled to? The second "entitled" is also questionable. Well, the "not" in front of it is. If a call is "limit or better" then the opponents are certainly entitled to that information. And the question as to whether one is allowed to say it is gone, since one is then obliged to tell this. > (eg) Making an apparent trial bid but with the full intention of > bidding on is fine. Your screen mate should only get the information > trial bid or invitational plus or whatever. You cant cover yourself > here with a "I'm always bidding game btw" - either the hand is worth a > move over a signoff / pause from pd or it isnt. If it is > questionable, dont bid the trial bid, find some other bid or just bid > game. > That is good advice, but it is only advice on how to act in order not to get TD calls against you. There is nothing wrong with acting differently, provided you accept that the TD will be called and that he'll occasionally rule against you. > If your screenmate knows you will bid game or more they have extra > information their partners dont. Yes, so? If you show him your HK, he has knowledge his HAQ is worth 2 tricks, and he's entitled to use that information. > Say they decide to jam the bidding > with a pre-emptive bid. (a) their pd's might consider this non > pre-emptive as the trial bid has only created a forcing situation to > below game NO. If N is telling E that the bidding is limit or better, then so should S tell W. (b) The opponents are now in a situaton they may not have > been as your screenmate may have passed the trial bid ?? sorry, don't understand. (c) Pd is under > far more pressure. All due to information the screenmate is not > entitled to > Well, as I said, either he is entitled to it, or he has simply got it, and in that case it is up to him to realise that his partner may not receive the information. > > K. > Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 9 14:54:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:54:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com><18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net><2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com><2b1e598b0906081932o74878620s83414ff40de53a9b@mail.gmail.com><4A2E40EB.6040508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201c9e901$7cddf590$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling I must have missed the thread - but in my simplistic world you are not entitled to pass extra information about your hand to a screen mate they are not entitled to. < +=+ As long as it is not designed to mislead, I think any inoffensive remark may be made to a screenmate in privacy behind screens. However, when the auction comes round to the player next I believe he is entitled to judge his action freely in the light of the auction to that point, unconstrained by any prior thought (albeit that thought was revealed to the screenmate or not). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jun 9 16:29:07 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:29:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <4A2E5BF3.4060609@skynet.be> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906081932o74878620s83414ff40de53a9b@mail.gmail.com> <4A2E40EB.6040508@skynet.be> <4A2E5BF3.4060609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A2E71B3.9030803@aol.com> Without joining the discussion and without knowing Karel or his antecedents or linguistic facility I wonder if he didn't use "entitled" intentionally. There is a difference between "entitled" and "allowed" in English (at least in many cases) and he may well be aware of it. Perhaps he could clarify this. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Karel, despite his dutch name, is a native English speaker, so it > surprises me he fails to understand the nuances of the words entitled > and allowed: > > Karel wrote: >> I must have missed the thread - but in my simplistic world you are not >> entitled to pass extra information about your hand to a screen mate >> they are not entitled to. >> > > The first "entitled" is, IMHO, wrong. It should be "allowed". And then > it sounds awful. Why should you not be allowed to tell your opponents > more than they are entitled to? > The second "entitled" is also questionable. Well, the "not" in front of > it is. If a call is "limit or better" then the opponents are certainly > entitled to that information. And the question as to whether one is > allowed to say it is gone, since one is then obliged to tell this. > >> (eg) Making an apparent trial bid but with the full intention of >> bidding on is fine. Your screen mate should only get the information >> trial bid or invitational plus or whatever. You cant cover yourself >> here with a "I'm always bidding game btw" - either the hand is worth a >> move over a signoff / pause from pd or it isnt. If it is >> questionable, dont bid the trial bid, find some other bid or just bid >> game. >> > > That is good advice, but it is only advice on how to act in order not to > get TD calls against you. There is nothing wrong with acting > differently, provided you accept that the TD will be called and that > he'll occasionally rule against you. > >> If your screenmate knows you will bid game or more they have extra >> information their partners dont. > > Yes, so? If you show him your HK, he has knowledge his HAQ is worth 2 > tricks, and he's entitled to use that information. > >> Say they decide to jam the bidding >> with a pre-emptive bid. (a) their pd's might consider this non >> pre-emptive as the trial bid has only created a forcing situation to >> below game > > NO. If N is telling E that the bidding is limit or better, then so > should S tell W. > > (b) The opponents are now in a situaton they may not have >> been as your screenmate may have passed the trial bid > > ?? sorry, don't understand. > > (c) Pd is under >> far more pressure. All due to information the screenmate is not >> entitled to >> > > Well, as I said, either he is entitled to it, or he has simply got it, > and in that case it is up to him to realise that his partner may not > receive the information. > >> K. >> > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 9 16:33:44 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:33:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0906082052j27aa955dk658d454d01b08586@mail.gmail.com> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906051200m36ee5339n109a34bdea5e0ebd@mail.gmail.com> <07880421-673F-43EF-9F9A-4C03BD7F4BC9@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0906082052j27aa955dk658d454d01b08586@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5B4117B7-BAEF-45E8-9AAA-E03298A31FBD@starpower.net> On Jun 8, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > First, Eric wrote lots of examples of forcing-pass agreements, but I > don't see his point. Perhaps I am dense. Was he listing methods that > very good players choose to play where a slow signoff could convey UI? > I agree that they do this. Maybe their partners generally respond > with perfect uniform tempo, or maybe they haven't thought about the UI > implications, or maybe they convince the TDs something or other to > their advantage. > > Earlier, I wrote "A really fine director will ignore the intentions of > the player and follow the laws---focusing on UI implications and LAs > under the system." > > To that, Eric Landau responded: > >> I don't agree. The player's stated intention may "self-serving >> evidence" but it is still evidence. > > Where in Law 16B1b does a player's original intentions matter for > determining LAs? Are you making up your own laws here, or are you > following the rule book? Are you just going by your common sense and > ignoring the definition of LAs in law 16B1b? I am really curious > about how see your position relative to the laws. The reply below is cut-and-pasted from a discussion of this point with Jerry off list, so may not be phrased to be directly responsive to the above. I think it summarizes my position nicely, though. > I justify my interpretation using L16B1(a): "...may not choose from > among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by the extraneous information." I argue > that when in your methods your hand calls for a two-step sequence > and you begin that sequence at the first step, you in effect put > yourself on an "automatic glide path" to the second step; if you > can complete the sequence, you will. No new information, > extraneous or otherwise, will present any alternative or in any way > suggest that you not do so -- you're on auto-pilot, and auto-pilots > are immune to suggestion. > > I read L16B1(b) as defining a set of criteria which determinatively > establish (for the benefit of the adjudicator) the existence of an > LA, which is subtly different from reading it as defining the term > itself. That reading allows a finding of "not an LA" without > recourse to L16B1(b) if the adjudicator is convinced that it is > "demonstrably" so. But if you don't like that reading, I can just > as well base my argument on "demonstrably... suggested". > > To me, the key phrase in L16B1(a) should be read as "...may not > choose from among [his] logical alternatives one that could > demonstrably have been suggested [to him] over another by the > extraneous information" rather than as "...may not choose from > among [some third-party adjudicator's] logical alternatives one > that could demonstrably have been suggested [to that adjudicator] > over another by the extraneous information". > > Another way of looking at it is if you start a planned two-step, > "the class of players in question and using the methods of the > partnership" consists of others who would have started a planned > two-step. Now you may have planned a two-step but nevertheless > find it difficult or impossible to convince a TD or AC that that is > "demonstrably" so, which is as it should be. But I argue that *if* > they are convinced that you are merely completing a two-step > sequence as you intended to do all along -- after investigating, > and based on whatever evidence they find determinative -- they must > allow the second step to stand. So, yes, as I read the law, the player's original intention may matter. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 9 23:22:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 22:22:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com><18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net><2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com><2b1e598b0906051200m36ee5339n109a34bdea5e0ebd@mail.gmail.com><07880421-673F-43EF-9F9A-4C03BD7F4BC9@starpower.net><2b1e598b0906082052j27aa955dk658d454d01b08586@mail.gmail.com> <5B4117B7-BAEF-45E8-9AAA-E03298A31FBD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002d01c9e948$6fca3610$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > So, yes, as I read the law, the player's original > intention may matter. > +=+ Eric will have observed that I wrote: "As long as it is not designed to mislead, I think any inoffensive remark may be made to a screenmate in privacy behind screens. However, when the auction comes round to the player next I believe he is entitled to judge his action freely in the light of the auction to that point, unconstrained by any prior thought (albeit that thought was revealed to the screenmate or not)." It occurs to me that I could have amplified the above by noting that if a remark does in fact deceive or is claimed to have done, notwithstanding the benign intention, the Director may rectify the matter. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 10 01:00:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:00:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006001c9e8e0$5c0a0a50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott asserted: >+=+ The only situation I recall in which the laws countenance >reservation of rights is when a player believes an opponent >has received UI from partner as Law 16B2 describes. So a >reservation of rights indicates that such is the case. > To remark upon the UI without reservation of rights >draws attention to an irregularity and Law 9B1(a) applies. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills quibbles: To remark upon selection of a demonstrably suggested logical alternative in response to the UI draws attention to an irregularity and Law 9B1(a) applies. But "unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction" according to Law 73D1. So immediately summoning the Director _after_ an unintentional creation of UI (but _before_ any selection of a demonstrably suggested logical alternative) is only permitted in the two circumstances outlined in Law 16B2: (a) The Regulating Authority has prohibited reservation of rights, instead requiring calling the Director, or (b) The side which allegedly unintentionally created UI denies so doing. 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 Jun 10 01:25:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:25:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A2E15C1.4070703@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asserted: [snip] >>>And, with reference to "close L16 cases", the answer is obvious in >>>TFLB : if it's close (i.e. you can't prove it), then don't adjust. >>>(perhaps that's wrong, but that's another story) Richard Hills quibbles: >>"Obvious" answer? Not necessarily so. If it is "obvious" that a >>Law 16 infraction has occurred, but it is a "close" decision as to >>whether or not the non-offending side have been damaged [snip] Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >AG : I meant : close as to whether or not there was usable UI. Richard Hills quibbles: Still wrong. If it is a close decision (you cannot prove it) as to whether or not a Law 16 infraction occurred, then fortunately "beyond reasonable doubt" proof is relevant only in the context of a possible Law 79C2 regulation. In other "close" decisions on disputed facts, Law 85A does Not say "then don't adjust", but Does say "the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect". In the very rare "very close" decisions on disputed facts, where the Law 85A scales of justice are equally balanced, Law 85B does Not say "then don't adjust", but Does say that the Director "makes a ruling that will permit play to continue". (Which presumably means that a Law 85B determination of disputed facts means that the Director is now prohibited from making a Law 91A ruling suspending a contestant from the rest of the session, since then play would Not continue.) 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 Jun 10 02:08:45 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:08:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: >>E S W N >>--- --- --- P* >>--- 2C** >> >>* = hasty, notably prior to anyone else examining their cards >>** = BOOT Steve Willner: >So what is the correct ruling, and how do we get there now? (I'm >assuming 2C was strong and artificial, and thus there is no >"denomination shown.") If West accepts the BOOT or if East passes, >it's easy, but what if neither of those happy events occurs? > >I can see there will be lead penalties if EW declare, and I can guess >what the rest of the correct ruling should be, but it isn't clear to >me exactly what route we take to get there. Roger Pewick: >Eventually the 2C bidding card was returned to the box and E passed. >The TD ruled that 2C must be repeated and that N must pass this >round. And then left. Richard Hills: Director's error. Given that West did not accept the BOOT under Law 29A, but instead East chose to Pass, then Yes, the 2C bid must be repeated, but No there is no need for North to pass this round. Law 31A1 - Bid out of Rotation - RHO's Turn "When the offender has called at his RHO's turn to call, then: If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation, and when that call is legal there is no rectification." Roger Pewick: >>The resulting contract was 2C-S making 9 tricks. >>..... >>However, NS appealed as they wanted the most favorable score >>conceivable which was the outcome of the appeal - 3N-S NS+400 EW-400. Law 82C - Director's Error "If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose." Richard Hills: So Law 82C required the Appeals Committee to give this split score, for once Lawfully keeping both sides happy by treating both sides as non- offending: 3NT by South, North-South +400 and 2C by South, East-West -110 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 Jun 10 03:05:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:05:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Postal chess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asserted [snip] >There is no trace of a mention of a player's plans in defining LA. >His system, yes; his plans, no, even if incontrovertible. > >Counterintuitive? Obviously. Postal chess players might be >baffled by this aspect of the laws. Richard Hills notes: In the old days of snail mail, The Laws of Postal Chess permitted one to avoid time-wasting by offering binding conditional moves. For example, if I was White and I had started the game with Bobby Fischer's favourite first move, 1 e4, I could well offer the conditional move, "If 1 ... e5, then 2 Bc4". Jerry Fusselman asserted: >But there nothing about a player's intentions that affects the set >of calls that are deemed LAs. Therefore, as a matter of simple >logic on reading Law 16B1(b), a player's intentions should be >ignored when determining LAs. His system must be carefully >understood, but not his intentions. Richard Hills quibbles: Not so fast. Whenever I played Postal Chess or normal Chess, I invariably played the Ourousov Gambit if given the opportunity, so my incontrovertible intention to play 2 Bc4 morphed into the only logical alternative for my Ourousov Gambit class of player. (The Ourousov Gambit is the only chess opening with a 100% success record against former World Champion Anatoly Karpov. The solitary time he encountered it, he lost. Theorists believe that it is a very sound gambit, as White gets rapid development of pieces for the sacrificed pawn. 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Bg5) Similarly, when John (MadDog) Probst returns to the bridge table, he might try "walking the dog" by underbidding 3S with a solid nine- card spade suit, then rebidding 4S in a hope of getting doubled. The fact that most experts do not pre-empt then freely bid again does not prove that a 3S opener's Pass of partner's double of an opponent's 4H overcall must necessarily be a logical alternative for the MadDog class of player who holds nine solid spades. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Former postal chess champion of Tasmania -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 10 04:15:59 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:15:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Postal chess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:05:23 -0400, wrote: > > Jerry Fusselman asserted > > [snip] > >> There is no trace of a mention of a player's plans in defining LA. >> His system, yes; his plans, no, even if incontrovertible. >> >> Counterintuitive? Obviously. Postal chess players might be >> baffled by this aspect of the laws. > > Richard Hills notes: > > In the old days of snail mail, The Laws of Postal Chess permitted > one to avoid time-wasting by offering binding conditional moves. > > For example, if I was White and I had started the game with Bobby > Fischer's favourite first move, 1 e4, I could well offer the > conditional move, "If 1 ... e5, then 2 Bc4". > > Jerry Fusselman asserted: > >> But there nothing about a player's intentions that affects the set >> of calls that are deemed LAs. Therefore, as a matter of simple >> logic on reading Law 16B1(b), a player's intentions should be >> ignored when determining LAs. His system must be carefully >> understood, but not his intentions. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Not so fast. Whenever I played Postal Chess or normal Chess, I > invariably played the Ourousov Gambit if given the opportunity, so > my incontrovertible intention to play 2 Bc4 morphed into the only > logical alternative for my Ourousov Gambit class of player. > > (The Ourousov Gambit is the only chess opening with a 100% success > record against former World Champion Anatoly Karpov. The solitary > time he encountered it, he lost. Theorists believe that it is a > very sound gambit, as White gets rapid development of pieces for the > sacrificed pawn. 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 > 6 Bg5) > > Similarly, when John (MadDog) Probst returns to the bridge table, he > might try "walking the dog" by underbidding 3S with a solid nine- > card spade suit, then rebidding 4S in a hope of getting doubled. > > The fact that most experts do not pre-empt then freely bid again > does not prove that a 3S opener's Pass of partner's double of an > opponent's 4H overcall must necessarily be a logical alternative for > the MadDog class of player who holds nine solid spades. The fact that experts might not open 3S is irrelevant. The issue, as clearly stated in the laws, is what the experts would bid on the auction that actually occurred, starting with the 3S bid. I can imagine a player opening 3S, intending to go to 4, then deciding to leave partner's double in when partner quickly and confidently doubles. "Class of player" roughly refers to ability. There really isn't much more that can be done with it, that I can see. I would be very eager to here of some director that has done more with it. I just don't think we can have classes like "Finnish players" or "manic-depressives in their manic phase" or even "aggressive players". To allow a MadDog class of player makes membership in the class always equal to one, which obvious is not what the laws intended. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Jun 10 06:22:28 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:22:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Postal chess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200906100422.n5A4Ma6v032071@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> > Robert Frick: >that actually occurred, starting with the 3S bid. I can imagine a player >opening 3S, intending to go to 4, then deciding to leave partner's double >in when partner quickly and confidently doubles. That's what I like, a partner whose doubles are unambiguous! Cheers Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 10 06:23:29 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:23:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Postal chess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Similarly, when John (MadDog) Probst returns to the bridge table, he >>might try "walking the dog" by underbidding 3S with a solid nine- >>card spade suit, then rebidding 4S in a hope of getting doubled. >> >>The fact that most experts do not pre-empt then freely bid again >>does not prove that a 3S opener's Pass of partner's double of an >>opponent's 4H overcall must necessarily be a logical alternative for >>the MadDog class of player who holds nine solid spades. Robert Frick: >The fact that experts might not open 3S is irrelevant. The issue, as >clearly stated in the laws, is what the experts would bid on the >auction that actually occurred, starting with the 3S bid. I can >imagine a player opening 3S, intending to go to 4, then deciding to >leave partner's double in when partner quickly and confidently >doubles. > >"Class of player" roughly refers to ability. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: class, n. any set of persons or things differentiated by quality from others [L classis, assembly] Robert Frick: [snip] >don't think we can have classes like "Finnish players" or "manic- >depressives in their manic phase" or even "aggressive players". Aussie Interstate Open Teams, Dlr: South, Vul: East-West SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 2C (1) Pass(2) 3H (3) ? (1) 8-12 hcp, 5+ hearts and a 4+ minor (2) Break in tempo while consulting permitted Law 20G2 defensive notes (3) Preemptive, signoff with at least 3 hearts East held: AQ765 8 T2 K9832 At the table East elected to call 3S, due to his male chauvinist belief that Pass would be a logical alternative in the Interstate Women's Teams, but that Pass was not a logical alternative for the "manic- depressives in their manic phase" who populated the Interstate Open Teams. After consulting other expert "manic-depressives in their manic phase" in the Open Teams field, the Director in charge agreed that East had not infracted Law 16. When the North-South non-playing captain elected to appeal, the Appeals Committee consisted of "manic-depressives in their manic phase" peers, so the AC ruled the appeal without merit, fining the North-South team a standard amount of victory points. But when East later submitted this problem for discussion by a non- manic panel of Directors, sure enough some of these non-peers ruled that a Pass of 3H by East was a logical alternative. Robert Frick: >To allow a MadDog class of player makes membership in the class always >equal to one, which obvious is not what the laws intended. Richard Hills: A slight misinterpretation of the original problem. In this particular case, a MadDog peer is someone who "walks the dog" by a non-systemic initial underbid. So "dog walking" peers would include Tim West-Meads, myself, and perhaps Adam Beneschan: [snip] >>>As someone who likes to be "creative" in the auction occasionally, >>>the idea that I'm not allowed to play bridge if I make an unsystemic >>>bid and then receive UI later is obnoxious. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 10 13:56:46 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:56:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Postal chess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:23:29 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills: > > [snip] > >>> Similarly, when John (MadDog) Probst returns to the bridge table, he >>> might try "walking the dog" by underbidding 3S with a solid nine- >>> card spade suit, then rebidding 4S in a hope of getting doubled. >>> >>> The fact that most experts do not pre-empt then freely bid again >>> does not prove that a 3S opener's Pass of partner's double of an >>> opponent's 4H overcall must necessarily be a logical alternative for >>> the MadDog class of player who holds nine solid spades. > > Robert Frick: > >> The fact that experts might not open 3S is irrelevant. The issue, as >> clearly stated in the laws, is what the experts would bid on the >> auction that actually occurred, starting with the 3S bid. I can >> imagine a player opening 3S, intending to go to 4, then deciding to >> leave partner's double in when partner quickly and confidently >> doubles. >> >> "Class of player" roughly refers to ability. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > class, n. any set of persons or things differentiated by quality from > others [L classis, assembly] > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >> don't think we can have classes like "Finnish players" or "manic- >> depressives in their manic phase" or even "aggressive players". > > Aussie Interstate Open Teams, Dlr: South, Vul: East-West > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > 2C (1) Pass(2) 3H (3) ? > > (1) 8-12 hcp, 5+ hearts and a 4+ minor > (2) Break in tempo while consulting permitted Law 20G2 defensive notes > (3) Preemptive, signoff with at least 3 hearts > > East held: > > AQ765 > 8 > T2 > K9832 > > At the table East elected to call 3S, due to his male chauvinist belief > that Pass would be a logical alternative in the Interstate Women's > Teams, but that Pass was not a logical alternative for the "manic- > depressives in their manic phase" who populated the Interstate Open > Teams. After consulting other expert "manic-depressives in their > manic phase" in the Open Teams field, the Director in charge agreed > that East had not infracted Law 16. > > When the North-South non-playing captain elected to appeal, the Appeals > Committee consisted of "manic-depressives in their manic phase" peers, > so the AC ruled the appeal without merit, fining the North-South team a > standard amount of victory points. > > But when East later submitted this problem for discussion by a non- > manic panel of Directors, sure enough some of these non-peers ruled that > a Pass of 3H by East was a logical alternative. Hi Richard. I can't tell if you are just arguing or if this is a serious answer. Are you saying that the directors decided that the appropriate class of player to poll was manic-depressives in their manic phase? Or did they just poll experts at the tournament? And you are saying that they were all manic, but how do you know that and why is it relevant? > > Robert Frick: > >> To allow a MadDog class of player makes membership in the class always >> equal to one, which obvious is not what the laws intended. > > Richard Hills: > > A slight misinterpretation of the original problem. In this particular > case, a MadDog peer is someone who "walks the dog" by a non-systemic > initial underbid. So "dog walking" peers would include Tim West-Meads, > myself, and perhaps Adam Beneschan: Interesting, but is this really practical? The player is stating, after the hand, that he belongs in the category of players who would bid 3S and then 4S with that hand. Isn't that self-serving? And if we poll players who would bid 3S and then 4S with this hand, haven't we pre-answered the poll? Imagine that a player uses a hesitation to compete in an auction, and after the fact claims he is an aggressive bidder. Do we have to make sure that only aggressive bidders are in the poll? Are you suggesting to ask players what they would first bid with this hand, then throw out all of the pollees who open 4S? That would pre-judge the matter against poor MadDog (because you are throwing out most of the players who want to go to 4S with that hand and leaving all of the players who think 3S is high enough). So that's not right. In other words, the law suggests I find players of about equal ability to MadDog, give them the auction up to the point where MadDog has to bid 4S or pass the double. Then ask what they would do. I don't see how you have posed any practical alternative to this. > > [snip] > >>>> As someone who likes to be "creative" in the auction occasionally, >>>> the idea that I'm not allowed to play bridge if I make an unsystemic >>>> bid and then receive UI later is obnoxious. Think of it as adding a new dimension to bidding. I have retooled one of my bids to avoid potential UI problems. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 10 14:50:30 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <286EB79F-F724-4C3D-AC0D-0A0D9010FC5E@starpower.net> On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:08 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Roger Pewick: > >>> E S W N >>> --- --- --- P* >>> --- 2C** >>> >>> * = hasty, notably prior to anyone else examining their cards >>> ** = BOOT > > Steve Willner: > >> So what is the correct ruling, and how do we get there now? (I'm >> assuming 2C was strong and artificial, and thus there is no >> "denomination shown.") If West accepts the BOOT or if East passes, >> it's easy, but what if neither of those happy events occurs? >> >> I can see there will be lead penalties if EW declare, and I can guess >> what the rest of the correct ruling should be, but it isn't clear to >> me exactly what route we take to get there. > > Roger Pewick: > >> Eventually the 2C bidding card was returned to the box and E passed. >> The TD ruled that 2C must be repeated and that N must pass this >> round. And then left. > > Richard Hills: > > Director's error. Given that West did not accept the BOOT under Law > 29A, but instead East chose to Pass, then Yes, the 2C bid must be > repeated, but No there is no need for North to pass this round. > > Law 31A1 - Bid out of Rotation - RHO's Turn > > "When the offender has called at his RHO's turn to call, then: > If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of > rotation, > and when that call is legal there is no rectification." > > Roger Pewick: > >>> The resulting contract was 2C-S making 9 tricks. >>> ..... >>> However, NS appealed as they wanted the most favorable score >>> conceivable which was the outcome of the appeal - 3N-S NS+400 >>> EW-400. > > Law 82C - Director's Error > > "If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines > to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be > scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides > as non-offending for that purpose." > > Richard Hills: > > So Law 82C required the Appeals Committee to give this split score, > for > once Lawfully keeping both sides happy by treating both sides as non- > offending: > > 3NT by South, North-South +400 and 2C by South, East-West -110 As non-offenders, both sides get "the most favorable result that was likely..." We haven't seen the hands, but it would be quite a coincidence if, absent the erroneous ruling, it was at all "likely" that N-S would play in 2C. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at bridgescore.de Wed Jun 10 15:00:24 2009 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:00:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artifical bids Message-ID: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> Hi, we had a pretty intense discussion regarding artificial bids and whether follow-up bids are to be alerted. The following bidding: N E S W 1H p 1NT(a) p 2S all pass 1NT shows 5cards in Spades and 2S was a limit bid with 3 spades. East has 2/2/4/5 with mediocre values and claims damage: He would have bid 2NT, has 2S been alerted and explained. With a strong hand on his right, he did not consider bidding an option and did not want to create unnecessary UI by asking (seemingly) pointless questions about 1NT. Position a: 2S is a natural bid, there is no reason for alert. The alert on 1NT gives the opponent all necessary warnings Position b: 2S as a common sense meaning for 16+, 5H4S and therefore needs to be alerted What is your opinion on this? Regards, Christian From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Jun 10 15:18:49 2009 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:18:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artificial bids In-Reply-To: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E314E@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> > we had a pretty intense discussion regarding artificial bids > and whether follow-up bids are to be alerted. Under whose regulations? A similar case occurred in England 1C[A]-(P)-1H[A]-(P)-2S-P-P-P 1C was 2+C balanced or natural 1H was 4+S 2S was 4+S NF "I would have competed with 3D over 2S if I had known 2S was weak/non-forcing". Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 15:37:41 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:37:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artifical bids In-Reply-To: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> References: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: 2009/6/10 Christian Farwig (BLML) : > Hi, > > we had a pretty intense discussion regarding artificial bids and whether > follow-up bids are to be alerted. The following bidding: > > N ? ? E ? ? S ? ? ?W > 1H ? ?p ? ? 1NT(a) p > 2S ?all pass > > 1NT shows 5cards in Spades and 2S was a limit bid with 3 spades. East > has 2/2/4/5 with mediocre values and claims damage: He would have bid > 2NT, has 2S been alerted and explained. With a strong hand on his right, > he did not consider bidding an option and did not want to create > unnecessary UI by asking (seemingly) pointless questions about 1NT. > > Position a: 2S is a natural bid, there is no reason for alert. The alert > on 1NT gives the opponent all necessary warnings > > Position b: 2S as a common sense meaning for 16+, 5H4S and therefore > needs to be alerted > > What is your opinion on this? In an environment where a forcing 1NT response is "normal", 1NT is alertable, and a 2S response by declarer would be natural and strong. Thus, 2S as support for responders spades should be alertable IMO. In an environment where a forcing 1NT response is "unheard of", the situation is a little different. The alert of 1NT would wake up the opponents to something unfamiliar, and they'd b probably ask about the meaning of 1NT and follow-ups. I still believe 2S should be alertable. There's a grey area between the two situations I describe. Anyway, it's up to the local RA to decide these things. > > Regards, > > Christian > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jun 10 15:40:48 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:40:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artifical bids In-Reply-To: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> References: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <4A2FB7E0.3000805@ulb.ac.be> Christian Farwig (BLML) a ?crit : > Hi, > > we had a pretty intense discussion regarding artificial bids and whether > follow-up bids are to be alerted. The following bidding: > > N E S W > 1H p 1NT(a) p > 2S all pass > > 1NT shows 5cards in Spades and 2S was a limit bid with 3 spades. East > has 2/2/4/5 with mediocre values and claims damage: He would have bid > 2NT, has 2S been alerted and explained. With a strong hand on his right, > he did not consider bidding an option and did not want to create > unnecessary UI by asking (seemingly) pointless questions about 1NT. > > Position a: 2S is a natural bid, there is no reason for alert. The alert > on 1NT gives the opponent all necessary warnings > > Position b: 2S as a common sense meaning for 16+, 5H4S and therefore > needs to be alerted > > What is your opinion on this? > AG : any bid whose meaning is or can be unexpected is to be alerted, whence answer b). Many natural bids have to be alerted, for example a natural 2C opening (Precision); Many 'to play' bids have to be alerted, e.g. weak 3C/D responses over 1NT ; so a) doesn't hold. North would have solved that by saying 'genuine alert' of 1NT, or 'double alert', as some have suggested, but this didn't reach TFLB now. Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 15:40:57 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:40:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artificial bids In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E314E@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> References: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E314E@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: 2009/6/10 Robin Barker : > > >> we had a pretty intense discussion regarding artificial bids >> and whether follow-up bids are to be alerted. > > Under whose regulations? > > A similar case occurred in England > 1C[A]-(P)-1H[A]-(P)-2S-P-P-P > > 1C was 2+C balanced or natural > 1H was 4+S > 2S was 4+S NF > > "I would have competed with 3D over 2S if I had known 2S was weak/non-forcing". That's more or less how I play. And we always alert the 2S respons, and also the 1S respons showing any hand with 3-card spades and some with 4. (With one partner 2S shows 11-12, we rebid 1S with 13-14 and some 18-19, with another we respond 2S with 13-14 and put the 11-12 hands in 1S.) > > Robin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. > > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. > > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom ?RG27 9UY > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jun 10 15:49:05 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:49:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artificial bids In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E314E@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E314E@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <4A2FB9D1.8020600@ulb.ac.be> Robin Barker a ?crit : > >> we had a pretty intense discussion regarding artificial bids >> and whether follow-up bids are to be alerted. >> > > Under whose regulations? > > A similar case occurred in England > 1C[A]-(P)-1H[A]-(P)-2S-P-P-P > > 1C was 2+C balanced or natural > 1H was 4+S > 2S was 4+S NF > > "I would have competed with 3D over 2S if I had known 2S was weak/non-forcing". > AG : in principle, the answer is the same : 2S is too uncommon as a NF (and fitted) bid to let it go unalerted. However, you should examine the claim of 'I would have competed'. 2nd hand probably can't hold a hand for copeting to 3D without having bid 1D before, unless playing a strange overcall system that makes the 1D bid impossible. 4th hand should have asked, after the unexpected pass of 2S, and the dreaded 'failed to protect oneself' could apply, especially in an area where T-walsh is common. This doesn't take anything away from the fact that there was a failure to alert. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 10 15:50:56 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:50:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artifical bids In-Reply-To: References: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <4A2FBA40.7080101@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2009/6/10 Christian Farwig (BLML) : > >> Hi, >> >> we had a pretty intense discussion regarding artificial bids and whether >> follow-up bids are to be alerted. The following bidding: >> >> N E S W >> 1H p 1NT(a) p >> 2S all pass >> >> 1NT shows 5cards in Spades and 2S was a limit bid with 3 spades. East >> has 2/2/4/5 with mediocre values and claims damage: He would have bid >> 2NT, has 2S been alerted and explained. With a strong hand on his right, >> he did not consider bidding an option and did not want to create >> unnecessary UI by asking (seemingly) pointless questions about 1NT. >> >> Position a: 2S is a natural bid, there is no reason for alert. The alert >> on 1NT gives the opponent all necessary warnings >> >> Position b: 2S as a common sense meaning for 16+, 5H4S and therefore >> needs to be alerted >> >> What is your opinion on this? >> > > In an environment where a forcing 1NT response is "normal", 1NT is > alertable, and a 2S response by declarer would be natural and strong. > Thus, 2S as support for responders spades should be alertable IMO. > > In an environment where a forcing 1NT response is "unheard of", the > situation is a little different. The alert of 1NT would wake up the > opponents to something unfamiliar, and they'd b probably ask about the > meaning of 1NT and follow-ups. I still believe 2S should be alertable. > There's a grey area between the two situations I describe. Anyway, > it's up to the local RA to decide these things. > > AG : I beg to differ. In an area where forcing notrumps are unheard of, surely NF 2S are, too. From blml at bridgescore.de Wed Jun 10 16:11:25 2009 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:11:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artifical bids In-Reply-To: <4A2FB7E0.3000805@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> <4A2FB7E0.3000805@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A2FBF0D.4060205@bridgescore.de> I think "Alert, Alert" was a suggestion by Edgar Kaplan in the Bridge World some 25 years ago. Situation has not improved too much since then Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > > North would have solved that by saying 'genuine alert' of 1NT, or > 'double alert', as some have suggested, but this didn't reach TFLB now. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Jun 10 17:20:42 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:20:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artifical bids In-Reply-To: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> References: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <4A2FCF4A.7040306@meteo.fr> Christian Farwig (BLML) a ?crit : > Hi, > > we had a pretty intense discussion regarding artificial bids and whether > follow-up bids are to be alerted. The following bidding: > > N E S W > 1H p 1NT(a) p > 2S all pass > > 1NT shows 5cards in Spades and 2S was a limit bid with 3 spades. East > has 2/2/4/5 with mediocre values and claims damage: He would have bid > 2NT, has 2S been alerted and explained. With a strong hand on his right, > he did not consider bidding an option and did not want to create > unnecessary UI by asking (seemingly) pointless questions about 1NT. > > Position a: 2S is a natural bid, there is no reason for alert. The alert > on 1NT gives the opponent all necessary warnings > > Position b: 2S as a common sense meaning for 16+, 5H4S and therefore > needs to be alerted > > What is your opinion on this? position a. when somebody warns you that you should better ask than assume and you are careless up to the point of ignoring it, you get what you deserve. i can't understand the notion of "common sense meaning" following an alerted bid. jpr > > Regards, > > Christian > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Jun 10 21:08:06 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:08:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artifical bids In-Reply-To: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> References: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <6067429.1244660886776.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> "Christian Farwig (BLML)" wrote: > > we had a pretty intense discussion regarding artificial bids and whether > follow-up bids are to be alerted. The following bidding: > > N E S W > 1H p 1NT(a) p > 2S all pass > > 1NT shows 5cards in Spades and 2S was a limit bid with 3 spades. East > has 2/2/4/5 with mediocre values and claims damage: He would have bid > 2NT, has 2S been alerted and explained. With a strong hand on his right, > he did not consider bidding an option and did not want to create > unnecessary UI by asking (seemingly) pointless questions about 1NT. > > Position a: 2S is a natural bid, there is no reason for alert. The alert > on 1NT gives the opponent all necessary warnings > > Position b: 2S as a common sense meaning for 16+, 5H4S and therefore > needs to be alerted > > What is your opinion on this? If this was not behind screens, and E is not a beginner, I fine E a PP for deliberately passing UI to his partner by inquiring about alerted bids only when he considers bidding. I think 2S should be alerted. I do not see actual damage to E by the failure to alert 2S o E failed to inquire about the alert of 1NT, he probably also would not have inquired any alert of 2S ;-) o E is not in the passout seat, and S is still unlimited Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From blml at arcor.de Wed Jun 10 21:24:35 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:24:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Postal chess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21248699.1244661875957.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:23:29 -0400, wrote: > > > Richard Hills: > > > > [snip] > > > >>> Similarly, when John (MadDog) Probst returns to the bridge table, he > >>> might try "walking the dog" by underbidding 3S with a solid nine- > >>> card spade suit, then rebidding 4S in a hope of getting doubled. > >>> > >>> The fact that most experts do not pre-empt then freely bid again > >>> does not prove that a 3S opener's Pass of partner's double of an > >>> opponent's 4H overcall must necessarily be a logical alternative for > >>> the MadDog class of player who holds nine solid spades. > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> The fact that experts might not open 3S is irrelevant. The issue, as > >> clearly stated in the laws, is what the experts would bid on the > >> auction that actually occurred, starting with the 3S bid. I can > >> imagine a player opening 3S, intending to go to 4, then deciding to > >> leave partner's double in when partner quickly and confidently > >> doubles. > >> > >> "Class of player" roughly refers to ability. > > > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > > > class, n. any set of persons or things differentiated by quality from > > others [L classis, assembly] > > > > Robert Frick: > > > > [snip] > > > >> don't think we can have classes like "Finnish players" or "manic- > >> depressives in their manic phase" or even "aggressive players". > > > > Aussie Interstate Open Teams, Dlr: South, Vul: East-West > > > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > > 2C (1) Pass(2) 3H (3) ? > > > > (1) 8-12 hcp, 5+ hearts and a 4+ minor > > (2) Break in tempo while consulting permitted Law 20G2 defensive notes > > (3) Preemptive, signoff with at least 3 hearts > > > > East held: > > > > AQ765 > > 8 > > T2 > > K9832 > > > > At the table East elected to call 3S, due to his male chauvinist belief > > that Pass would be a logical alternative in the Interstate Women's > > Teams, but that Pass was not a logical alternative for the "manic- > > depressives in their manic phase" who populated the Interstate Open > > Teams. After consulting other expert "manic-depressives in their > > manic phase" in the Open Teams field, the Director in charge agreed > > that East had not infracted Law 16. > > > > When the North-South non-playing captain elected to appeal, the Appeals > > Committee consisted of "manic-depressives in their manic phase" peers, > > so the AC ruled the appeal without merit, fining the North-South team a > > standard amount of victory points. > > > > But when East later submitted this problem for discussion by a non- > > manic panel of Directors, sure enough some of these non-peers ruled that > > a Pass of 3H by East was a logical alternative. > > Hi Richard. I can't tell if you are just arguing or if this is a serious > answer. Are you saying that the directors decided that the appropriate > class of player to poll was manic-depressives in their manic phase? > > Or did they just poll experts at the tournament? And you are saying that > they were all manic, but how do you know that and why is it relevant? I suggest that you spend a day or two watching some junior pairs (age <25) play, and then you compare their style against what you have seen from your 60+ year old paying customers. Then you will know how to know. ;-) Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 10 21:49:42 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:49:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artifical bids In-Reply-To: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> References: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <0747E9B2-2306-48EF-B474-E2C77FCB57BB@starpower.net> On Jun 10, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Christian Farwig (BLML) wrote: > we had a pretty intense discussion regarding artificial bids and > whether > follow-up bids are to be alerted. The following bidding: > > N E S W > 1H p 1NT(a) p > 2S all pass > > 1NT shows 5cards in Spades and 2S was a limit bid with 3 spades. East > has 2/2/4/5 with mediocre values and claims damage: He would have bid > 2NT, has 2S been alerted and explained. With a strong hand on his > right, > he did not consider bidding an option and did not want to create > unnecessary UI by asking (seemingly) pointless questions about 1NT. > > Position a: 2S is a natural bid, there is no reason for alert. The > alert > on 1NT gives the opponent all necessary warnings > > Position b: 2S as a common sense meaning for 16+, 5H4S and therefore > needs to be alerted > > What is your opinion on this? Disclaimer: ACBL-flavored answer. A "standard" 2S is a treatment (value-showing reverse), but this 2S is a pure natural bid. As such, it requires an alert only if its being a pure natural bid would be unexpected in context. The alert of 1NT, by itself, does not give the opponent "all necessary warnings", as it gives him no particular reason to expect a purely natural 2S. A full explanation, however, would have. So if the alerted 1NT was inquired about and explained, you have fulfilled your obligation, as a natural raise of the suit partner has shown should consequently not be unexpected. But if the opponents remain unaware that 1NT was artificial showing spades, you owe them an alert. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jun 11 00:17:52 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:17:52 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > To remark upon selection of a demonstrably suggested logical > alternative in response to the UI draws attention to an > irregularity and Law 9B1(a) applies. But "unintentionally to > vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is > not in itself an infraction" according to Law 73D1. But is it an irregularity, therefore subject to Law 9B1(a)? I say no. I can take a full minute to consider a call, and there is nothing wrong with that. Bridge is a thinking game, someone said. It is only when the partner has used the UI to advantage that an irregularity exists. If that applies to long thought, there must be a general principle that creation of UI is in itself not an irregularity, as it happens *regularly* in this game. Come visit my club sometime. > > So immediately summoning the Director _after_ an unintentional > creation of UI (but _before_ any selection of a demonstrably > suggested logical alternative) is only permitted in the two > circumstances outlined in Law 16B2: > > (a) The Regulating Authority has prohibited reservation of > rights, instead requiring calling the Director, or Which the ACBL has chosen not to do, as it did previously > > (b) The side which allegedly unintentionally created UI denies > so doing. > But let's make it clear that it is *they* who should call the TD, not the other side, which has no legitimate cause to do so until the end of play (L16B3). Law 16B2: "The opponents [the UI makers, that is] should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jun 11 00:29:46 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:29:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs References: <4A2E1564.3000109@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: From: "Alain Gottcheiner" Marv: >> After using 2, there is no further conversation about the UI. If >> the >> opponents want to deny it, I am not going to tell them they >> should >> call the TD. > AG : do you read that in TFLB ? I don't read that it is my responsibility to teach opponents about the Laws, so it isn't. If they don't know they should call the TD, tough. >I prefer the following formulation : 'Do we agree that there was a >very fast double, just in case ?' and if they deny it, I'm calling the TD myself, if only to make *his* life easier. Of course TDs typically like this approach, but the purpose of the Laws is not to make life easier for the TD. I prefer adherence to the Laws, and that is not the procedure described in L16B2/3. The right procedure prevents the quibbling that will often occur if the matter is debated between the two sides. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 11 01:55:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:55:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Don't worry, be happy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <286EB79F-F724-4C3D-AC0D-0A0D9010FC5E@starpower.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>So Law 82C required the Appeals Committee to give this split score, >>for once Lawfully keeping both sides happy by treating both sides >>as non-offending: >> >>3NT by South, North-South +400 and 2C by South, East-West -110 Eric Landau: >As non-offenders, both sides get "the most favorable result that was >likely..." We haven't seen the hands, but it would be quite a >coincidence if, absent the erroneous ruling, it was at all "likely" >that N-S would play in 2C. Richard Hills: "Absent the erroneous ruling" begs the question, petitio principii. In an earlier thread I revealed how the table Director mangled a ruling involving the 1997 Law 25B. The Director in charge did not immediately charge in Directly, but instead waited for the score up. As luck would have it, neither side were damaged by the erroneous ruling and both sides would be worse off after a corrected ruling with adjusted score, so that erroneous 1997 Law 25B ruling remained well and truly present. In the current case, for East-West it was at all "likely" that North-South would play in 2C if the erroneous Law 31A1 ruling remained well and truly present. 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 Jun 11 04:05:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:05:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills just says no: >>But "unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a >>call or play is made is not in itself an infraction" according >>to Law 73D1. Marvin French just says no: >But is it an irregularity, therefore subject to Law 9B1(a)? I >say no. The Definitions just say no: "Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 11 07:01:09 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:01:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Postal chess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <21248699.1244661875957.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Robert Frick asked: [snip] >>Or did they just poll experts at the tournament? And you are saying >>that they were all manic, but how do you know that and why is it >>relevant? Thomas Dehn answered: >I suggest that you spend a day or two watching some junior pairs >(age <25) play, and then you compare their style against what you >have seen from your 60+ year old paying customers. > >Then you will know how to know. ;-) Richard Hills concurs: In Australia, summer youth championships date back to 1969, and winter youth championships date back to 1982. So most of the current top Aussie experts graduated from youth bridge (including a top Aussie expert, David Hoffman, now representing Australia in the World Senior Championship). Hence Pass is a logical alternative less often for the young-at-heart middle-aged Aussie experts than it is for the old-at-heart middle- aged Yankee experts. Currently middle-aged Yankee experts were denied the experience of playing youth bridge due to the recalcitrant ACBL administration of the 1970s. Edgar Kaplan wrote at the time that those 1970s ACBL administrators had a view that cards were the devil's picturebooks, distracting university students from their studies. Kaplan noted that dropping out of university because of bridge was not the end of the world, since one person who had done so was eventually successful in his chosen career as the Editor of The Bridge World. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 09:23:36 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:23:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alerting responses on artifical bids In-Reply-To: <0747E9B2-2306-48EF-B474-E2C77FCB57BB@starpower.net> References: <4A2FAE68.5080908@bridgescore.de> <0747E9B2-2306-48EF-B474-E2C77FCB57BB@starpower.net> Message-ID: 2009/6/10 Eric Landau : > On Jun 10, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Christian Farwig (BLML) wrote: > >> we had a pretty intense discussion regarding artificial bids and >> whether >> follow-up bids are to be alerted. The following bidding: >> >> N ? ? E ? ? S ? ? ?W >> 1H ? ?p ? ? 1NT(a) p >> 2S ?all pass >> >> 1NT shows 5cards in Spades and 2S was a limit bid with 3 spades. East >> has 2/2/4/5 with mediocre values and claims damage: He would have bid >> 2NT, has 2S been alerted and explained. With a strong hand on his >> right, >> he did not consider bidding an option and did not want to create >> unnecessary UI by asking (seemingly) pointless questions about 1NT. >> >> Position a: 2S is a natural bid, there is no reason for alert. The >> alert >> on 1NT gives the opponent all necessary warnings >> >> Position b: 2S as a common sense meaning for 16+, 5H4S and therefore >> needs to be alerted >> >> What is your opinion on this? > > Disclaimer: ?ACBL-flavored answer. > > A "standard" 2S is a treatment (value-showing reverse), but this 2S > is a pure natural bid. ?As such, it requires an alert only if its > being a pure natural bid would be unexpected in context. ?The alert > of 1NT, by itself, does not give the opponent "all necessary > warnings", as it gives him no particular reason to expect a purely > natural 2S. ?A full explanation, however, would have. > > So if the alerted 1NT was inquired about and explained, you have > fulfilled your obligation, as a natural raise of the suit partner has > shown should consequently not be unexpected. ?But if the opponents > remain unaware that 1NT was artificial showing spades, you owe them > an alert. > That would apply also in Norway, and in most RAs, I believe. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 11 15:05:54 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:05:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <151BB56E-72DE-48D6-A095-6D32664C4E2E@starpower.net> On Jun 10, 2009, at 6:17 PM, Marvin L French wrote: >> (a) The Regulating Authority has prohibited reservation of >> rights, instead requiring calling the Director, or > > Which the ACBL has chosen not to do, as it did previously Of course, since this means that the at-the-table protocol for handling tempo-break problems has, at least in theory, changed radically, it would be nice if they announced the change to their members. AFAICT the only formal "announcement" has been the elision of the reference to L16 in the "Elections by The ACBL Board of Directors" in the back of the ACBL version of TFLB, where it might be noticed by anyone making an in-depth comparative study of the old and new lawbooks. But then perhaps they decided that they needn't bother, since nobody seems to know how the old protocol worked anyhow. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 12 01:55:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:55:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A single different opinion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 183-184: Berkeley political scientist Chandra Nemeth has shown in a host of studies of mock juries that the presence of a minority viewpoint, all by itself, makes a group's decisions more nuanced and its decision-making process more rigorous. This is true even when the minority viewpoint turns out to be ill- conceived. The confrontation with a dissenting view, logically enough, forces the majority to interrogate its own positions more seriously. This doesn't mean that the ideal jury will follow the plot of "Twelve Angry Men", where a single holdout convinces eleven men who are ready to convict that they're all wrong. But it does mean that having even a single different opinion can make a group wiser. Steve Willner, August 2004, majority viewpoint: >>the day of the week is presumptively AI Richard Hills, August 2004, ill-conceived minority viewpoint: >I think it might have been Eddie Kantar who related this >(paraphrased) story -> > >A top-class expert became highly upset with his misguesses of >two-way finesses. He finally decided on this rigid rule to >save time: > >(a) finessing through LHO on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; > >(b) finessing through RHO on Tuesdays, Thursdays and >Saturdays; and, > >(c) playing for the drop on Sundays. > >Towards the end of a gruelling week-long national >championship, the expert's dummy noticed that the expert was >palely loitering. When dummy asked for the reason, the expert >replied, > >"I can't remember the day of the week." Richard Hills, June 2009: This issue of the day of the week allegedly being AI has now been clarified by the new 2007 Law 40B3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Richard Hills, June 2009: So in Eddie Kantar's scenario, the expert is entitled to use (AI) the day of the week as a pseudo-random number generator, but dummy is not permitted to remind (UI) the expert of the day of the week. Unless dummy is specifically allowed to give reminders to declarer by the Regulating Authority. For example, the regulations for a Teams of Three contest, where three bunnies take it in turn to partner their expert captain in a one- session three-match event, may permit an expert dummy to give advice to a bunny declarer during the play of a deal. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 12 23:57:55 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:57:55 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <998E7BC143F340CDAFE0743B13102ED1@MARVLAPTOP> > Richard Hills: > > In an environment where almost all of your opponents use the > strong 1NT opening bid, the DONT convention is highly > efficient, making life difficult for the opponents while > creating wriggle room to dodge a penalty double. The Marvin convention is more efficient, IMO. Unlike DONT, which is restricted to higher-level ACBL games, it is permitted at all levels. The reason is that it always has a known "anchor" suit on which opponents can hang a Stayman bid. It has the unique ability of showing any one-suited, two-suited, or three-suited hand. Dbl = CDH or DH or H 2C = DHS or HS or S 2D = HSC or SC or C 2H = SCD or CD or D 2S = spades (weaker than getting there via 2C) 2NT = forces a 3C bid (weaker than getting there via 2D) 3C = CH 3D = DS 3H/3S is strong In a higher-level event, 2NT can be used with either clubs or diamonds. In any event, an option is to use 2NT to show both minors, weaker than getting there via 2H. While the 3C/3D bids may seem dangerous, they do have two virtues: exact description and preemptive value. Advancer usually selects one of the three possible suits after a double or two-level overcall, but can bid 2NT with game aspirations. Intervenor then describes his hand. If Advancer bids one of the possible trio, Intervenor can pass or correct, with a correction defining the hand's distribution. Advancer may pass a conventional bid with great length if bidding looks dangerous, or raise it if strong enough. If LHO doubles an artificial bid, a pass is to play (sic) and a redouble is takeout If LHO bids a suit, a double is negative, a bid is to play, and a pass is non-committal These policies preclude the necessity of asking for the meaning of an opposing action (which may help them more than you). An option against weak notrump (or strong, if you wish) is to play a double as penalty and 2S as CDH or DH or H. I have used this convention for perhaps a dozen years now, with generally good results. Finding a 4-4 fit denied to others usually produces a near-top matchpoint score. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 13 07:13:40 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:13:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <5B4117B7-BAEF-45E8-9AAA-E03298A31FBD@starpower.net> References: <200906050001.RAA13783@mailhub.irvine.com> <18195508.1244179050352.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <2b1e598b0906050021t7819091ey96add415d10c8961@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906051200m36ee5339n109a34bdea5e0ebd@mail.gmail.com> <07880421-673F-43EF-9F9A-4C03BD7F4BC9@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0906082052j27aa955dk658d454d01b08586@mail.gmail.com> <5B4117B7-BAEF-45E8-9AAA-E03298A31FBD@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:33:44 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 8, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> First, Eric wrote lots of examples of forcing-pass agreements, but I >> don't see his point. Perhaps I am dense. Was he listing methods that >> very good players choose to play where a slow signoff could convey UI? >> I agree that they do this. Maybe their partners generally respond >> with perfect uniform tempo, or maybe they haven't thought about the UI >> implications, or maybe they convince the TDs something or other to >> their advantage. >> >> Earlier, I wrote "A really fine director will ignore the intentions of >> the player and follow the laws---focusing on UI implications and LAs >> under the system." >> >> To that, Eric Landau responded: >> >>> I don't agree. The player's stated intention may "self-serving >>> evidence" but it is still evidence. >> >> Where in Law 16B1b does a player's original intentions matter for >> determining LAs? Are you making up your own laws here, or are you >> following the rule book? Are you just going by your common sense and >> ignoring the definition of LAs in law 16B1b? I am really curious >> about how see your position relative to the laws. > > The reply below is cut-and-pasted from a discussion of this point > with Jerry off list, so may not be phrased to be directly responsive > to the above. I think it summarizes my position nicely, though. > >> I justify my interpretation using L16B1(a): "...may not choose from >> among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been >> suggested over another by the extraneous information." I argue >> that when in your methods your hand calls for a two-step sequence >> and you begin that sequence at the first step, you in effect put >> yourself on an "automatic glide path" to the second step; if you >> can complete the sequence, you will. > No new information, >> extraneous or otherwise, will present any alternative or in any way >> suggest that you not do so -- you're on auto-pilot, and auto-pilots >> are immune to suggestion. Actually, no one is ever forced to make the bid they planned on making. >> >> I read L16B1(b) as defining a set of criteria which determinatively >> establish (for the benefit of the adjudicator) the existence of an >> LA, which is subtly different from reading it as defining the term >> itself. In the 1997 Lawbook, "logical alternative" apparently was not defined. The "opinion of other players" hence was just a method of trying to establish a logical alternative, and AFAIK it is not mentioned in the 1997 laws. So it seems reasonable that you could take a historical perspective and suggest that "logical alternative" did not change definitions for the 2007 laws, and that all L16B1(b) does is formalizing the polling criteria. But you can't read the 2007 laws that way without that historical anchor. L16B1(b) says "A logical alternative is....", not "a logical alternative is determined by...." You call this difference "subtle". However, it may have significant implications. I have consistenly complained about the chain of inference "If I wouldn't consider it, it isn't an LA" and "If it's a bad bid, it isn't an LA." In the current 2007 laws, if half the people wouldn't consider it, it still could be an LA, and the quality of the bid is irrelevant. But for the 1997 laws, these chains of inference seem much more reasonable to me. So, if we want to follow the 2008 laws as written, ACs need to be aware of this subtle change. >> That reading allows a finding of "not an LA" without >> recourse to L16B1(b) if the adjudicator is convinced that it is >> "demonstrably" so. But if you don't like that reading, I can just >> as well base my argument on "demonstrably... suggested". >> >> To me, the key phrase in L16B1(a) should be read as "...may not >> choose from among [his] logical alternatives one that could >> demonstrably have been suggested [to him] over another by the >> extraneous information" rather than as "...may not choose from >> among [some third-party adjudicator's] logical alternatives one >> that could demonstrably have been suggested [to that adjudicator] >> over another by the extraneous information". Again, the law does not say either of these, as you note. The law is written as if "logical alternative" does not depend on perspective. Which is to say, there is some body of players, and their considerations and selections determine whether or not an alternative is a LA. (You are I might come to the wrong conclusion and a poll might yield a wrong result.) >> >> Another way of looking at it is if you start a planned two-step, >> "the class of players in question and using the methods of the >> partnership" consists of others who would have started a planned >> two-step. This is not just another way of looking at it, it is a reasonable way of interpreting the laws to get to where you want to go. Let's suppose that the player didn't think about whether or not he was always going to 4H when he made his 3D bid. After all, he didn't have to think about it then, and he might never have to think about it at all if his partner jumps to 4H. But if there had been no hesitation, he could have decided to go to 4H. Is the relevant class for polling "players who would have gone to 4H over partner's 3H bid"? I think "class" can be reasonably interpreted as meaning quality of player, and others have suggested what amounts to polling the playing field -- you would not poll old people to determine the LA for a youth contest. But I don't think "class" can be equated with "category" or that you can use ad hoc categories like this, especially when they prejudge the outcome of the poll. This is partly an attempt to be practical. But in my dictionary, the "same meaning as category" is definition #4, and I think the laws could have said category if they meant to allow that. >> Now you may have planned a two-step but nevertheless >> find it difficult or impossible to convince a TD or AC that that is >> "demonstrably" so, which is as it should be. But I argue that *if* >> they are convinced that you are merely completing a two-step >> sequence as you intended to do all along -- after investigating, >> and based on whatever evidence they find determinative -- they must >> allow the second step to stand. Well, they would have to interpret "class" the same way as you. I don't think they are forced to do that. I agree there is no L73C infraction if you intended to make the bid all along and hence are not using the UI. Alain wrote: > So you're stating that 'logical alternative' doesn't mean 'alternative > that's logical'. (French-speaking people may think 'chauve-souris') > On which basis ? The two are not connected. "Logical alternative" is given a technical definition in the 2007 laws. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 13 18:08:26 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:08:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) Message-ID: How about: Following any claim or concession, players should display their unplayed cards for inspection. I want something where, a player shows their cards face up, and if no one shows any interest, they can shuffle their hand together. But someone who cares gets to look at the hands. It is useful for handling revokes. It would eliminate that awkward "Let me look at your hand to see if you revoked" moment. I think it would also be a general courtesy for players who want to post mortem the hand. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 13 18:42:18 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:42:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601c9ec45$eb330de0$c19929a0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > How about: > > Following any claim or concession, players should display their unplayed > cards for inspection. How about Law 70B3? It is already there. Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 13 18:55:29 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:55:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: <000601c9ec45$eb330de0$c19929a0$@no> References: <000601c9ec45$eb330de0$c19929a0$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:42:18 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> How about: >> >> Following any claim or concession, players should display their unplayed >> cards for inspection. > > How about Law 70B3? It is already there. > > Sven That's only for contested claims and concessions (by the heading) and requires calling the director. I meant all claims and concessions. My sentence would probably go in L69. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 13 21:23:41 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:23:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: References: <000601c9ec45$eb330de0$c19929a0$@no> Message-ID: <000701c9ec5c$7648d200$62da7600$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > >> How about: > >> > >> Following any claim or concession, players should display their unplayed > >> cards for inspection. > > > > How about Law 70B3? It is already there. > > > > Sven > > That's only for contested claims and concessions (by the heading) and > requires calling the director. I meant all claims and concessions. My > sentence would probably go in L69. I see absolutely no reason to unnecessarily always waste time after a claim or a concession. After all the purpose of claims and concessions is to save time. But if something might be unclear (in any way) then opponents have every reason to initially ask for the outstanding cards to be shown, and If necessary they may call the Director. So what is the problem? Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 13 22:08:21 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:08:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: <000701c9ec5c$7648d200$62da7600$@no> References: <000601c9ec45$eb330de0$c19929a0$@no> <000701c9ec5c$7648d200$62da7600$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:23:41 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> Sven Pran wrote: >> > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> >> How about: >> >> >> >> Following any claim or concession, players should display their > unplayed >> >> cards for inspection. >> > >> > How about Law 70B3? It is already there. >> > >> > Sven >> >> That's only for contested claims and concessions (by the heading) and >> requires calling the director. I meant all claims and concessions. My >> sentence would probably go in L69. > > I see absolutely no reason to unnecessarily always waste time after a > claim > or a concession. After all the purpose of claims and concessions is to > save > time. > > But if something might be unclear (in any way) then opponents have every > reason to initially ask for the outstanding cards to be shown, and If > necessary they may call the Director. > > So what is the problem? > > Regards Sven To give one example, my partner, playing in 6S, just has to get to his hand to draw trumps. He tries a club, is over-ruffed, and the opponents fold their hands together and concede the rest. To give another example, now from the last time I played, my partner had all good trump and a small heart in his hand. He played the ace of hearts from the board, it was ruffed, and then my partner claimed the rest. If I want to check for a revoke, I can ask to see their hand. I have done this, and I find it awkward. Or I can try to remember to check afterwards, but that would be awkward if I found a revoke. Compare this to how long is takes to show your hand. If no one is interested, about one second. (Note also that my partner could have played out the hand to see if the opp had revoked, but that is hardly saving time.) And what if you don't suspect a revoke but it did occur? Showing the revoking hand should reveal the revoke. Once I played out a hand in 3D, down 1 when LHO over-ruffed me in hearts. Before starting the next hand, we somehow got to discussing her distribution and found out she started with 3 hearts and shouldn't have been able to over-ruff. The matter of a revoke could have been very easily settled if she had flashed her hand after I claimed -- she either has a heart in her hand or she doesn't. Instead, we had to get the board back out and try to reconstruct the play. As it turned out, she didn't remember the play and insisted she had led a diamond at one point. She was surely wrong, but she was insistent, so to avoid problems I let her lead a diamond. Then I made 3 on the replay and the director gave me making 3. That seemed fair at the time, but later I realized that maybe she got a chance to throw a heart and did not revoke. So, flashing your cards following a claim or concession 1. Saves time and awkwardness when you a revoke is suspected 2. Could reveal a revoke. 3. Takes almost no time unless someone is interested, in which case it saves time. On top of that, a player might just want to see the hands to post mortem. From tedying at yahoo.com Sat Jun 13 22:35:31 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: References: <000601c9ec45$eb330de0$c19929a0$@no> <000701c9ec5c$7648d200$62da7600$@no> Message-ID: <879332.72543.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I think the point is that if you want to see, even if it is to check for a revoke, when the opponents claim, it is easy enough to say, "I'd like to see all the hands, please." The opponents should lay down the hands and you can review. Every player is entitled to this before the hands are pocketed. If they don't, then call the director. There is no reason this should be awkward. I'm personally not fond of your suggestion. I run a weekly game of over 50 tables. I often have a time problem with players who are average pace or slower who do a number of things that take up time and are unnecessary. This includes writing the score in their private card before making an opening lead. Not claiming when it is clearly obvious they have all the rest. Discussing a hand when you still have another hand to play. These players will take up time, during the first board (or second in a three board round) but will always claim that it is the opponents fault when they fall behind, often don't try to catch up when they fall behind. I think that things that slow the game down when unnecessary should not be added. I think that unless you suspect that there is an issue with the hand then you should just pocket the hands and be ready to play the next hand. In the hand you gave, when you get overruffed in 6S, you clearly have a right to ask the player who overruffed to see his/her hand before moving on. You can post-mortem later with hand records. If you don't have hand records, then at the end of the session, you can move around the section and check out any board after completion of play, but you should not delay the game inspecting hands unless there is a problem. If you have time at the end of the round, you can always check out any hands before the board is passed. -Ted Ying. ________________________________ From: Robert Frick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:08:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:23:41 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> Sven Pran wrote: >> > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> >> How about: >> >> >> >> Following any claim or concession, players should display their > unplayed >> >> cards for inspection. >> > >> > How about Law 70B3? It is already there. >> > >> > Sven >> >> That's only for contested claims and concessions (by the heading) and >> requires calling the director. I meant all claims and concessions. My >> sentence would probably go in L69. > > I see absolutely no reason to unnecessarily always waste time after a > claim > or a concession. After all the purpose of claims and concessions is to > save > time. > > But if something might be unclear (in any way) then opponents have every > reason to initially ask for the outstanding cards to be shown, and If > necessary they may call the Director. > > So what is the problem? > > Regards Sven To give one example, my partner, playing in 6S, just has to get to his hand to draw trumps. He tries a club, is over-ruffed, and the opponents fold their hands together and concede the rest. To give another example, now from the last time I played, my partner had all good trump and a small heart in his hand. He played the ace of hearts from the board, it was ruffed, and then my partner claimed the rest. If I want to check for a revoke, I can ask to see their hand. I have done this, and I find it awkward. Or I can try to remember to check afterwards, but that would be awkward if I found a revoke. Compare this to how long is takes to show your hand. If no one is interested, about one second. (Note also that my partner could have played out the hand to see if the opp had revoked, but that is hardly saving time.) And what if you don't suspect a revoke but it did occur? Showing the revoking hand should reveal the revoke. Once I played out a hand in 3D, down 1 when LHO over-ruffed me in hearts. Before starting the next hand, we somehow got to discussing her distribution and found out she started with 3 hearts and shouldn't have been able to over-ruff. The matter of a revoke could have been very easily settled if she had flashed her hand after I claimed -- she either has a heart in her hand or she doesn't. Instead, we had to get the board back out and try to reconstruct the play. As it turned out, she didn't remember the play and insisted she had led a diamond at one point. She was surely wrong, but she was insistent, so to avoid problems I let her lead a diamond. Then I made 3 on the replay and the director gave me making 3. That seemed fair at the time, but later I realized that maybe she got a chance to throw a heart and did not revoke. So, flashing your cards following a claim or concession 1. Saves time and awkwardness when you a revoke is suspected 2. Could reveal a revoke. 3. Takes almost no time unless someone is interested, in which case it saves time. On top of that, a player might just want to see the hands to post mortem. _______________________________________________ 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/20090613/26f1accc/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 14 00:13:38 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:13:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: References: <000601c9ec45$eb330de0$c19929a0$@no> <000701c9ec5c$7648d200$62da7600$@no> Message-ID: <000e01c9ec74$3468e1a0$9d3aa4e0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > I see absolutely no reason to unnecessarily always waste time after a > > claim > > or a concession. After all the purpose of claims and concessions is to > > save > > time. > > > > But if something might be unclear (in any way) then opponents have every > > reason to initially ask for the outstanding cards to be shown, and If > > necessary they may call the Director. > > > > So what is the problem? > > > > Regards Sven > I still don't see how your examples changes the picture. First of all I don't think claims save any time at all unless the position is absolutely clear to all four players at the table. Second I have stated before and still maintain that the best way of claiming is to display one card at a time in the sequence in which they are to be played and at a speed of approximately three or four cards per second. This makes the claim unambiguous and easy to follow by opponents so that there should be no problem at all provided the claim is good. > To give one example, my partner, playing in 6S, just has to get to his > hand to draw trumps. He tries a club, is over-ruffed, and the opponents > fold their hands together and concede the rest. Your partner should of course in this situation have asked to see opponents' hands. > To give another example, > now from the last time I played, my partner had all good trump and a small > heart in his hand. He played the ace of hearts from the board, it was > ruffed, and then my partner claimed the rest. Can you give one single good reason why he did not enter his hand with a trump and drew all outstanding trumps before playing his last heart? > > If I want to check for a revoke, I can ask to see their hand. I have done > this, and I find it awkward. Or I can try to remember to check afterwards, > but that would be awkward if I found a revoke. There is nothing awkward about wanting to see opponents' hands when play is curtailed for whatever reason. > > Compare this to how long is takes to show your hand. If no one is > interested, about one second. (Note also that my partner could have played > out the hand to see if the opp had revoked, but that is hardly saving > time.) > > And what if you don't suspect a revoke but it did occur? Showing the > revoking hand should reveal the revoke. These are IMO just poor excuses for sloppy routines. > > Once I played out a hand in 3D, down 1 when LHO over-ruffed me in hearts. You actually played out the hand and didn't notice that your LHO held another heart? > Before starting the next hand, we somehow got to discussing her > distribution and found out she started with 3 hearts and shouldn't have > been able to over-ruff. The matter of a revoke could have been very easily > settled if she had flashed her hand after I claimed -- she either has a > heart in her hand or she doesn't. Instead, we had to get the board back > out and try to reconstruct the play. As it turned out, she didn't remember > the play and insisted she had led a diamond at one point. She was surely > wrong, but she was insistent, so to avoid problems I let her lead a > diamond. Then I made 3 on the replay and the director gave me making 3. > That seemed fair at the time, but later I realized that maybe she got a > chance to throw a heart and did not revoke. > > So, flashing your cards following a claim or concession > 1. Saves time and awkwardness when you a revoke is suspected > 2. Could reveal a revoke. > 3. Takes almost no time unless someone is interested, in which case it > saves time. Frankly I just don't buy any of these arguments as being relevant. > > On top of that, a player might just want to see the hands to post mortem. So what? Sorry Mac, I am not going to waste any more time on this. Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 14 00:53:48 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: <000e01c9ec74$3468e1a0$9d3aa4e0$@no> References: <000601c9ec45$eb330de0$c19929a0$@no> <000701c9ec5c$7648d200$62da7600$@no> <000e01c9ec74$3468e1a0$9d3aa4e0$@no> Message-ID: >> >> Once I played out a hand in 3D, down 1 when LHO over-ruffed me in >> hearts. > > You actually played out the hand and didn't notice that your LHO held > another heart? Wrong word, sorry. I played the hand in 3D. I claimed. Hearts were not played again, so the issue because if she had a heart in her hand when I claimed. > >> Before starting the next hand, we somehow got to discussing her >> distribution and found out she started with 3 hearts and shouldn't have >> been able to over-ruff. The matter of a revoke could have been very >> easily >> settled if she had flashed her hand after I claimed -- she either has a >> heart in her hand or she doesn't. Instead, we had to get the board back >> out and try to reconstruct the play. As it turned out, she didn't >> remember >> the play and insisted she had led a diamond at one point. She was surely >> wrong, but she was insistent, so to avoid problems I let her lead a >> diamond. Then I made 3 on the replay and the director gave me making 3. >> That seemed fair at the time, but later I realized that maybe she got a >> chance to throw a heart and did not revoke. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 15 00:17:19 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:17:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Both Robert Frick and Sven Pran have failed to realise that Bob's suggested 2018 Law change is unnecessary, as we already have the current 2007 Law 72B3: "A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely." Top young Canberra expert and sometime blmler Mark Abraham once realised that he had unintentionally committed an established defensive revoke against me. He was not obliged to draw attention to his revoke (Law 72B2), but when I claimed he obeyed Law 72B3 by exposing his remaining cards, thus giving me the opportunity (which I seized) of realising that he had revoked and then summoning the Director. 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jun 15 03:01:31 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:01:31 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <4F48E59C2AF143A9A02C0D7421F9B191@MARVLAPTOP> > Richard Hills > >>>But "unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a >>>call or play is made is not in itself an infraction" according >>>to Law 73D1. When a player needs a long time to think before bidding or playing, doing so is intentional but is nevertheless not an infraction. In fact, UI in general is not an infraction in itself. Intentionally varying the tempo or manner in which calls and plays [note the plural] are made is an infraction, and that's what this law should say. The majority of club players do that all the time and should be told that it's wrong. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 15 06:46:10 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:46:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] And in the darkness bind them [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A2E142B.4080903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Rosetta Stone for the Black Speech language: Ash nazg durbatul?k, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatul?k, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them Since nazg = ring, we can deduce that Nazg?l = Ringwraith Since burzum-ishi = darkness, we can deduce that Lugburz = Dark Tower. The other name for the Dark Tower, Barad-d?r, is Sindarin Elvish, not Black Speech. Law 80B2(e): "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens - provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied)." Richard Hills: >>Technically, announcing one's next call to one's screenmate is a >>call out of turn. As part of screen regulations, the Tournament >>Organizer could define a variation of the rectification for such >>a call out of turn (since it was not transmitted across the >>screen) as being a binding requirement to make that call out of >>turn (if still legal) when the player is next due to call. >> >>A difficulty with this approach is that such an announced call >>out of turn is by definition an intentional infraction, contrary >>to Law 72B1: Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >AG : I'd say it ceases to be an infraction if the CoC specify it >is legal. Laws like 80B2(e) give OBs a limited power to redefine >some infractions. Richard Hills quibbles: The bracketed clause of Law 80B2(e) gives the Tournament Organizer the power to change the rectification for an infraction not transmitted across a screen, But Not the power to redefine an infraction not transmitted across a screen as a non-infraction. Indeed, the immediately following clause Law 80B2(f) says: "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >For example, correct wordings according to L19 cease to be >correct when using BBs. Richard Hills quibbles: Laws 19A2 and 19B2 are merely The Fabulous Law Book's default options for making doubles and redoubles. Law 18F permits Regulating Authorities to over-ride the 19A2 and 19B2 defaults by introducing Bidding Box regulations or Written Bidding regulations or indeed even point-to-a-box-on-a-laminated-card-upon-the-table- listing-all-possible-calls regulations. But there is no authority granted by TFLB permitting a Regulating Authority to over-ride the Law 31 Bid Out Of Rotation default in order to make some BOORs legal. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, legal but pedantic BORE -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at irvine.com Mon Jun 15 17:15:23 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:15:23 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:17:19 +1000." Message-ID: <200906151458.HAA13443@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Both Robert Frick and Sven Pran have failed to realise that Bob's > suggested 2018 Law change is unnecessary, as we already have the > current 2007 Law 72B3: > > "A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by > committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a > revoke or mixing the cards prematurely." > > Top young Canberra expert and sometime blmler Mark Abraham once > realised that he had unintentionally committed an established > defensive revoke against me. He was not obliged to draw > attention to his revoke (Law 72B2), but when I claimed he obeyed > Law 72B3 by exposing his remaining cards, thus giving me the > opportunity (which I seized) of realising that he had revoked and > then summoning the Director. > > What's the problem? The problem is that the player who revoked still might not realize it by that time. Also, although Mark knew his responsibilities, I'm betting most players don't. I don't recall ever seeing, in the ACBL Bulletin for example, an article that explains what responsibilities a player has who realizes he has revoked. Nor do I recall seeing anything like this in the printed materials I was given as a new player. so even if a player who revoked realizes it later in the hand, and they may be (unknowingly) breaking the laws if they mix their cards, nothing will come of it. The non-offenders won't realize anything is amiss---if there are hand records, maybe they'll figure it out when they get around to looking over their results, but it's probably too late by then. I can understand Robert's point here. A revoke that goes unnoticed is unfair to the non-offenders, but expecting them to ask to see the hands whenever they suspect a revoke isn't enough, since there are many cases where there is nothing suspicious about the hand. (E.g. KJxx of trumps in dummy, Axxxx in hand; declarer cashes the ace, leads low to dummy, LHO shows out, and declarer, with no chance to create any extra side-suit tricks, now just claims whatever tricks he has and concedes the trump loser. If LHO really did have a small trump, what would give declarer any reason to check for a revoke? Robert's solution would help some, but I'm not sure it wouldn't cause other problems. I think the only solution is to get rid of those little pieces of plastic and use some sort of electronic system that would make revokes (and plays out of turn, insufficient bids, etc.) impossible. -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jun 15 20:10:01 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:10:01 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <151BB56E-72DE-48D6-A095-6D32664C4E2E@starpower.net> Message-ID: From: "Eric Landau" > Of course, since this means that the at-the-table protocol for > handling tempo-break problems has, at least in theory, changed > radically, it would be nice if they announced the change to their > members. AFAICT the only formal "announcement" has been the > elision > of the reference to L16 in the "Elections by The ACBL Board of > Directors" in the back of the ACBL version of TFLB, where it might > be > noticed by anyone making an in-depth comparative study of the old > and > new lawbooks. > > But then perhaps they decided that they needn't bother, since > nobody > seems to know how the old protocol worked anyhow. Because of the vague language of the Election: "..competitors will not be allowed to announce they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." Bad syntax, "may have been" should be "may be," and "resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side" should be "that could lead to a call or play that damages their side." Note that the writer didn't even know that bids are calls, or that plays are included. Good players came to ignore this Election, instead seeking agreement on the UI without the help of the Director. If agreed, proceed. If not, either forgettaboutit or call the TD. Now we have a new approach for the ACBL, which I believe is superior. When UI is created, that is not an irregularity in itself unless some regulation or law is violated. There is no cause for a TD call, nothing in the Laws that recommends it, and it can cause hard feelings. At least, I always feel a bit insulted when an opponent seems to imply that I might take advantage of UI. Moreover, the great majority of the time the UI does not lead to damage. It is especially annoying when an opponent calls the TD after our UI is not denied, saying "We have to call the director, it's required." No it isn't. This time-waster should result in a procedural penalty for an experienced player and a lecture for the inexperienced. How about L9B1(a)? It doesn't apply unless an irregularity has been committed. Or 73A1? No, communication is not consummated unless the recipient indicates in some way that it has been received. If I do not respond in any way to a telephone message, ignoring it completely, communication has not occurred. That is the only way I can reconcile L73A1 with L16B2. Hence, it is only when the receiver of UI takes an action that may have been demonstrably suggested....that there could be an irregularity (or is that "infraction," I never know). This is determined at the end of play (and not at sight of dummy, as in the previous Laws). The footnote to L16B3 says "it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later." Who's calling earlier? Surely not the potential NOS, who have no reason whatsoever to call, wasting everyone's time. The UI side might, however, realize that they should have called to deny the UI earlier, no problem there. The later that call, the more difficult it is for the TD to determine UI. For either side to call the TD after the next board or round is complete is pretty strange, but could be a result of a partnership consultation or an individual's change of mind Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that if the UI side does not call the TD to deny the UI, as L16B2 says they *should,* then that usually has to treated as a tacit admission of it. Waiting until the end of play to deny it should rarely be successful. The TD can rightly say, "You should have called me immediately if you deny the UI. Then I might have been able to determine its existence or non-existence more accurately Considering your failure to do that, I'm ruling UI." Another reason for the deniers to call the TD immediately is that if UI is confirmed, the receivers of the UI will know that their future actions are constrained by it. Another is that any discussion should be conducted by the TD, with both sides addressing only the TD. No bickering between the two sides, please. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jun 15 20:48:43 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:48:43 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200906151458.HAA13443@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4FC256BCD2434008AA24EBF0CAEB2D0F@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Richard Hills wrote: > >> Both Robert Frick and Sven Pran have failed to realise that Bob's >> suggested 2018 Law change is unnecessary, as we already have the >> current 2007 Law 72B3: >> >> "A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by >> committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a >> revoke or mixing the cards prematurely." >> >> Top young Canberra expert and sometime blmler Mark Abraham once >> realised that he had unintentionally committed an established >> defensive revoke against me. He was not obliged to draw >> attention to his revoke (Law 72B2), but when I claimed he obeyed >> Law 72B3 by exposing his remaining cards, thus giving me the >> opportunity (which I seized) of realising that he had revoked and >> then summoning the Director. >> > ... although Mark knew his responsibilities, I'm betting most > players don't. I don't recall ever seeing, in the ACBL Bulletin > for > example, an article that explains what responsibilities a player > has > who realizes he has revoked. Nor do I recall seeing anything like > this in the printed materials I was given as a new player. Terence Reese said that it behooves the revoker to lay his remaining cards, if any, face up on the table before adding them to the face-down pile. If an opponent doesn't notice the revoke, fine. Mark did indeed know his responsibiliy. However, the "prematurely" in L72B3 is not very clear. It would be better if this law clearly echoed Reese's suggestion, and added that an atttempt by the revoker to curtail play with a claim or concesssion violates this law. In materials given to new players by the ACBL, I don't remember seeing anything about ethical bidding and play. Someone corrrect me if it's in the Audrey Grant series. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 15 21:57:47 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:57:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FC256BCD2434008AA24EBF0CAEB2D0F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <200906151458.HAA13443@mailhub.irvine.com> <4FC256BCD2434008AA24EBF0CAEB2D0F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: From the laws, I get the understanding that a player can turn his cards face down after conceding or acquiescing to a claim. The player can shuffle his cards together when the outcome is agreed upon. If you ask to see a player's cards, my understanding is that the player can just say no. (It is more efficient to pretend not to hear and to shuffle one's cards together.) If I was called to the table, I would rule that a player is not obligated to show his remaining cards unless there is a claim of a revoke. (Of course, the hand can be taken out of the board if I am there.) Am I missing something? Ted seems to be saying that the players are entitled to see the cards if they ask. Richard's idea (that I turn over my cards when I haven't revoked but display them when I revoke) seems to contradict L9A4 -- I am not obligated to draw attention to my irregularity. L72B3 says I can't prematurely mix my cards together when I revoke, but presumably I cannot prematurely mix my cards together when I don't revoke. As to concealing the card involved in a revoke, that's the only way to get it back into the board face down. Unless the ethical thing is to put it back in the board on top face up. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 16 00:09:38 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:09:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FC256BCD2434008AA24EBF0CAEB2D0F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Rick Riordan, Percy Jackson and the Titan's Curse, page 43: "Wow," Thalia muttered. "Apollo is hot." "He's the sun god," I said. "That's not what I meant." Marv asserted: >However, the "prematurely" in L72B3 is not very clear. It would >be better if this law clearly echoed Reese's suggestion, and >added that an attempt by the revoker to curtail play with a claim >or concession violates this law. Law 63A3 quibbles: "A revoke becomes established: when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way." 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 Jun 16 00:33:51 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:33:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rick Riordan, Percy Jackson and the Titan's Curse, page 53: "Whoa," Nico said as he climbed off the bus. "Is that a climbing wall?" "Yeah," I said. "Why is there lava pouring down it?" "Little extra challenge." Robert Frick asserted: >If you ask to see a player's cards, my understanding is that the >player can just say no. (It is more efficient to pretend not to >hear and to shuffle one's cards together.) Law 66D quibbles: "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side." 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 Tue Jun 16 00:45:08 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:45:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0906151545v291c74e9h3a2c00cc00a04d98@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:33 PM, wrote: > > Robert Frick asserted: > > >If you ask to see a player's cards, my understanding is that the > >player can just say no. (It is more efficient to pretend not to > >hear and to shuffle one's cards together.) > > Law 66D quibbles: > > "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected > to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or > lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, > after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such > a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the > Director shall rule in favour of the other side." > Quibble. You keep using that word. ... Why do you call this a quibble? Robert wants to be able to see the cards even if there is no claim of revoke. The quoted law says to me that you first must claim a revoke, probably with some specificity, before you get the right to see the cards. Robert specifically addressed that point, and he would not have to claim a revoke to see the cards. Jerry Fusselman From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 16 00:51:45 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:51:45 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:33:51 +1000." Message-ID: <200906152234.PAA17505@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Robert Frick asserted: > > >If you ask to see a player's cards, my understanding is that the > >player can just say no. (It is more efficient to pretend not to > >hear and to shuffle one's cards together.) > > Law 66D quibbles: > > "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected > to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or > lost Doesn't the first part mean that you actually have to claim that there was a revoke in order to gain the right to inspect the opponents' cards (assuming there's no question about what tricks have been previously won or lost)? I think Robert is trying to solve the harm that occurs when a revoke goes unnoticed because of a claim; but requiring declarer to charge that there was a revoke every time he claims, just to see the opponents' cards to make sure there wasn't an unnoticed revoke, is just plain obnoxious. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 16 02:30:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:30:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Xenophilus Lovegood, editor of The Quibbler: "How wonderful! Gnome saliva is enormously beneficial!" Jerry Fusselman asserted: >Quibble. You keep using that word. ... Why do you call this a >quibble? Robert wants to be able to see the cards even if there >is no claim of revoke. Richard Hills quibbles: Robert Frick gave a secondary and trivial reason of enhancing an immediate post-mortem of the deal (but I deprecate such an idea, since post-mortems during the session often infract Laws 90B2, 90B3 and 74A2). But Bob's primary reason was to prevent concealing of revokes. Jerry Fusselman asserted: >The quoted law says to me that you first must claim a revoke, >probably with some specificity, Richard Hills quibbles: No. If a player suggests at the end of play, "There might have been a revoke," then that is sufficient to invoke Law 66D. Adam Beneschan asserted: >...requiring declarer to charge that there was a revoke every >time he claims, just to see the opponents' cards to make sure >there wasn't an unnoticed revoke, is just plain obnoxious. WBF Code of Practice, paragraph on Ethics, quibbles: "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens." Adam Beneschan asserted: >Also, although Mark knew his responsibilities, I'm betting most >players don't. I don't recall ever seeing, in the ACBL Bulletin >for example, an article that explains what responsibilities a >player has who realizes he has revoked. Nor do I recall seeing >anything like this in the printed materials I was given as a new >player. ACBL Duplicate Decisions 2008 (used as a replacement for the Laws by grass-roots ACBL club Directors) quibbles: "In previous Laws the Proprieties were, to a great degree, pious advice. In the 1987 Code, these principles of conduct and ethics were incorporated into the Laws. In the 1997 Code, further changes have increased the emphasis on the fact that these are Laws. The 2008 edition continues with this emphasis. The Director is authorized by Law 12 to award an assigned adjusted score when the Laws do not provide an indemnity to the non-offending side for the particular violation of Law committed by the opponents. ... A player must not conceal an infraction..." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jun 16 03:21:08 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:21:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:30:46 -0400, wrote: > > Xenophilus Lovegood, editor of The Quibbler: > > "How wonderful! Gnome saliva is enormously beneficial!" > > Jerry Fusselman asserted: > >> Quibble. You keep using that word. ... Why do you call this a >> quibble? Robert wants to be able to see the cards even if there >> is no claim of revoke. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Robert Frick gave a secondary and trivial reason of enhancing an > immediate post-mortem of the deal (but I deprecate such an idea, > since post-mortems during the session often infract Laws 90B2, > 90B3 and 74A2). > > But Bob's primary reason was to prevent concealing of revokes. > > Jerry Fusselman asserted: > >> The quoted law says to me that you first must claim a revoke, >> probably with some specificity, > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > No. If a player suggests at the end of play, "There might have > been a revoke," then that is sufficient to invoke Law 66D. Right, the laws just say that you have to claim a revoke, they don't say the form of the claim. > > Adam Beneschan asserted: > >> ...requiring declarer to charge that there was a revoke every >> time he claims, just to see the opponents' cards to make sure >> there wasn't an unnoticed revoke, is just plain obnoxious. > > WBF Code of Practice, paragraph on Ethics, quibbles: > > "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where > a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of > conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations > is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement > of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange > of information behind screens." This does not address the issue of being obnoxious. > > Adam Beneschan asserted: > >> Also, although Mark knew his responsibilities, I'm betting most >> players don't. I don't recall ever seeing, in the ACBL Bulletin >> for example, an article that explains what responsibilities a >> player has who realizes he has revoked. Nor do I recall seeing >> anything like this in the printed materials I was given as a new >> player. > > ACBL Duplicate Decisions 2008 (used as a replacement for the Laws > by grass-roots ACBL club Directors) quibbles: > > "In previous Laws the Proprieties were, to a great degree, pious > advice. In the 1987 Code, these principles of conduct and ethics > were incorporated into the Laws. In the 1997 Code, further > changes have increased the emphasis on the fact that these are > Laws. The 2008 edition continues with this emphasis. The Director > is authorized by Law 12 to award an assigned adjusted score when > the Laws do not provide an indemnity to the non-offending side > for the particular violation of Law committed by the opponents. > ... > A player must not conceal an infraction..." I think I have cleared this up offlist. Richard and his partner habitually show their cards following a claim. Given that, it would be unethical for them to not show their cards when they have revoked. I will check to make sure when I get a chance, but here (Long Island) it is usual for players not to show their cards following a claim. So they would be behaving normally to fold their hand up and not show it following a revoke. It would be generous to show one's cards, but I think L9A4 (no obligation to draw attention to an infraction) now applies. > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 16 05:21:26 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:21:26 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills: > > Marv asserted: > >>However, the "prematurely" in L72B3 is not very clear. It would >>be better if this law clearly echoed Reese's suggestion, and >>added that an attempt by the revoker to curtail play with a claim >>or concession violates this law. > > Law 63A3 quibbles: > > "A revoke becomes established: > when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or > concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other > way." So? A revoker may claim by saying "dummy's high" without showing his hand, or concede by saying, "The rest are yours." Hands back in the board, revoke goes unrevealed. Happens all the time. There are some cheats out there, even in NABC+ events. For instance, At an NABC an opponent threw the offending card on the floor during play. My partner alertly noticed that he had fewer cards than the rest of us when I claimed and he graciously conceded without showing his remaining cards. At another NABC an E-W opponent revoked on the 12th trick, trumping my high card, swiftly gathered up his hand, put it back in the board, and headed for the next table. "Wait," I said, and he turned and acknowledged his "mistake." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 16 08:52:00 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:52:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <200906151458.HAA13443@mailhub.irvine.com> <4FC256BCD2434008AA24EBF0CAEB2D0F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4A374110.7070406@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > From the laws, I get the understanding that a player can turn his cards > face down after conceding or acquiescing to a claim. The player can > shuffle his cards together when the outcome is agreed upon. If you ask to > see a player's cards, my understanding is that the player can just say no. > (It is more efficient to pretend not to hear and to shuffle one's cards > together.) > > If I was called to the table, I would rule that a player is not obligated > to show his remaining cards unless there is a claim of a revoke. (Of > course, the hand can be taken out of the board if I am there.) > AG : this seems unpractical to me, because wary players would never claim again. Whenever some suit isn't ideally split, they would be unable to chack for a revoke, whence, according to your theory, not claiming, in order to protect their rights. This surely isn't what we intend. Also, what about conditional claims ? (making 4 if the King is onside, 3 else). If they claim it isn't, are you compelled to take their word for it ? Now asking (see Marvin's contribution) that a revoker let see his cards at the time of a claim is impossible, because we'll never know whether somebody is conscious of one's own revoke. So the only efficient rule is indeed to ask that cards be exposed after a claim, in all cases. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 16 14:52:03 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:52:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0906151545v291c74e9h3a2c00cc00a04d98@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0906151545v291c74e9h3a2c00cc00a04d98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:33 PM, wrote: > >> Robert Frick asserted: >> >>> If you ask to see a player's cards, my understanding is that the >>> player can just say no. (It is more efficient to pretend not to >>> hear and to shuffle one's cards together.) >> >> Law 66D quibbles: >> >> "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected >> to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or >> lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, >> after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such >> a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the >> Director shall rule in favour of the other side." > > Quibble. You keep using that word. ... Why do you call this a > quibble? Robert wants to be able to see the cards even if there is no > claim of revoke. The quoted law says to me that you first must claim > a revoke, probably with some specificity, before you get the right to > see the cards. Robert specifically addressed that point, and he would > not have to claim a revoke to see the cards. Don't forget "...or the number of tricks won or lost". We can read L66D as establishing a right to inspect the hands based on any uncertainty as to whether the board is beiing scored correctly, whatever the reason for it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Jun 16 16:23:45 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:23:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: <200906152234.PAA17505@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200906152234.PAA17505@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <73c7d8780906160723q72d2a382i68838ecf73a69098@mail.gmail.com> [Adam Beneschan] Doesn't the first part mean that you actually have to claim that there was a revoke in order to gain the right to inspect the opponents' cards (assuming there's no question about what tricks have been previously won or lost)? I think Robert is trying to solve the harm that occurs when a revoke goes unnoticed because of a claim; but requiring declarer to charge that there was a revoke every time he claims, just to see the opponents' cards to make sure there wasn't an unnoticed revoke, is just plain obnoxious. [Nigel] I agree with Robert Frick that it would be better if the law specified that, at the end of play, players must display their remaining cards, if you ask them, without you having to accuse them of a revoke. From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 16 17:38:03 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:38:03 -0700 Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:30:46 +1000." Message-ID: <200906161520.IAA23871@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Adam Beneschan asserted: > > >Also, although Mark knew his responsibilities, I'm betting most > >players don't. I don't recall ever seeing, in the ACBL Bulletin > >for example, an article that explains what responsibilities a > >player has who realizes he has revoked. Nor do I recall seeing > >anything like this in the printed materials I was given as a new > >player. > > ACBL Duplicate Decisions 2008 (used as a replacement for the Laws > by grass-roots ACBL club Directors) quibbles: > > "In previous Laws the Proprieties were, to a great degree, pious > advice. In the 1987 Code, these principles of conduct and ethics > were incorporated into the Laws. In the 1997 Code, further > changes have increased the emphasis on the fact that these are > Laws. The 2008 edition continues with this emphasis. The Director > is authorized by Law 12 to award an assigned adjusted score when > the Laws do not provide an indemnity to the non-offending side > for the particular violation of Law committed by the opponents. > ... > A player must not conceal an infraction..." If you believe that a broad rule that "A player must not conceal an infraction" is enough to give a player direction as to what to do in the specific situation after he has revoked and then declarer claims, I believe you're very mistaken. Sure, *we* all know what to do because it's been discussed on this list; but would someone who has never heard anything to this effect "just know" what to do? Maybe a few would figure out, but not many. The correct action is far from obvious to someone who hasn't heard it before. And I'd be willing to bet that many people would assume that the phrase "A player must not conceal an infraction" applies to taking out-of-the-ordinary, positive steps to conceal the infraction; and that doing the normal thing after a claim, i.e. acquiescing and putting your hand back in the board, is not "concealing an infraction" because nothing special was done---any more than I'm "concealing" my age or the GNP of Bolivia simply because I haven't included either of those pieces of information in this post. Sure, *we* know that not exposing your hand after a revoke and claim is concealing the infraction, because it's been discussed on this list; but what reason to we have for assuming anyone else would know that, if all they knew was "A player must not conceal an infraction"? -- Adam From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jun 16 19:04:58 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:04:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0906151545v291c74e9h3a2c00cc00a04d98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0906161004i5e118f80o9db044180da4caf@mail.gmail.com> >>> Law 66D >>> >>> "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected >>> to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or >>> lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, >>> after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such >>> a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the >>> Director shall rule in favour of the other side." >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Don't forget "...or the number of tricks won or lost". ?We can read > L66D as establishing a right to inspect the hands based on any > uncertainty as to whether the board is beiing scored correctly, > whatever the reason for it. > An excellent point, Eric. Do you think directors would support this interpretation? I think they should, but consider this dialog: Me: May I see your remaining cards, West? West: Why? Me: I want to verify the number of tricks won. West: We've already agreed you've got the rest, making 10 tricks. I won't show you my remaining cards unless a director requires it. ... Director: Why do you demand to see their cards? Me: I want to verify the number of tricks won. Director: Looks like 10 to me. Me: Alright, I want to verify there were no revokes. Director: Which revokes in particular do you assert? ------------ How could I have handled it better? Who is out of line in this unfortunate confrontation? Jerry Fusselman From tedying at yahoo.com Tue Jun 16 19:19:14 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0906161004i5e118f80o9db044180da4caf@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0906151545v291c74e9h3a2c00cc00a04d98@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906161004i5e118f80o9db044180da4caf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <572142.25909.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> To me, clearly the director is the one out of line. If a player called the director and said that there was a claim and he wished to inspect all of the hands, I would request that all players table their hand to ensure that I agreed with the claim contention. I personally think that a director that did not do this, was being unnecessarily abrasive and would not be doing their club or tournament a favor. A director should be trying to ensure that in addition to all laws being followed, that where possible, all players enjoyed the experience as per the proprieties of the game and making a player who wanted to inspect all of the hands before moving onto the next board jump through hoops to do so, is inappropriate. In this neck of the woods, where we have quite a number of clubs and directors, this type of director would find themselves out of work soon. Having run clubs in our area for over 25 years, I can tell you, that directors like this one, their clubs games get smaller and smaller. Directors that are pleasant and support their players without making them jump through hoops have games that get bigger. -Ted. ________________________________ From: Jerry Fusselman To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:04:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) >>> Law 66D >>> >>> "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected >>> to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or >>> lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, >>> after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such >>> a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the >>> Director shall rule in favour of the other side." >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Don't forget "...or the number of tricks won or lost". We can read > L66D as establishing a right to inspect the hands based on any > uncertainty as to whether the board is beiing scored correctly, > whatever the reason for it. > An excellent point, Eric. Do you think directors would support this interpretation? I think they should, but consider this dialog: Me: May I see your remaining cards, West? West: Why? Me: I want to verify the number of tricks won. West: We've already agreed you've got the rest, making 10 tricks. I won't show you my remaining cards unless a director requires it. ... Director: Why do you demand to see their cards? Me: I want to verify the number of tricks won. Director: Looks like 10 to me. Me: Alright, I want to verify there were no revokes. Director: Which revokes in particular do you assert? ------------ How could I have handled it better? Who is out of line in this unfortunate confrontation? Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ 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/20090616/90cbede3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 17 00:52:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:52:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wikinomics, Don Tapscott & Anthony D. Williams, Preface, page xi "In 'The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture', pundit Andrew Keen issues a long bleat claiming the world is awash with drivel because it is so easy to propagate ideas on the Internet." Robert Frick asserted: [snip] >here (Long Island) it is usual for players not to show their cards >following a claim. So they would be behaving normally to fold their >hand up and not show it following a revoke. It would be generous to >show one's cards, but I think L9A4 (no obligation to draw attention >to an infraction) now applies. Wikinomics, Don Tapscott & Anthony D. Williams, Preface, page xi "As a recent study by 'Nature' revealed, all of our systems of knowledge production have flaws. 'Encyclopedia Britannica' was found to have nearly as many errors as Wikipedia -- the key difference is that Wikipedia's fluid content creation mechanisms and large volunteer community ensure that its errors get fixed quickly." Pocket Oxford Dictionary fixes errors quickly: conceal, v.t. Hide or keep secret Richard Hills quibbles: If a defender usually hides or keeps secret the faces of her cards remaining after declarer's claim, then if that defender happens to be knowingly "concealing a card involved in a revoke", force of habit does not mean that that defender's Law 72B3 infraction is somehow miraculously transmogrified into a non-infraction. By the way, Law 9A4 is an incomplete restatement of Law 72B2. While one does not normally have to say, "Gosh, I have revoked," Law 72B2 contains a cross-reference to the exception contained in Law 62A: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." Adam Beneschan demonstrably suggested: [snip] >The correct action is far from obvious to someone who hasn't heard it >before. And I'd be willing to bet that many people would assume that >the phrase "A player must not conceal an infraction" applies to >taking out-of-the-ordinary, positive steps to conceal the infraction; >and that doing the normal thing after a claim, i.e. acquiescing and >putting your hand back in the board, is not "concealing an >infraction" because nothing special was done [snip] Richard Hills concurs: Adam's suggestion is demonstrably true, given that the prolific blmler Robert Frick failed to cross the pons asinorum. The legal solution to this problem (and similar problems) is "ignorantia juris non excusat". But the practical solution is for Directors to do what retired Quebec Director Laval Du Breuil once did; hold short seminars on the Laws for players before sessions. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 17 02:04:42 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:04:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: <572142.25909.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <2b1e598b0906151545v291c74e9h3a2c00cc00a04d98@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0906161004i5e118f80o9db044180da4caf@mail.gmail.com> <572142.25909.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:19:14 -0400, Ted Ying wrote: > To me, clearly the director is the one out of line. > > If a player called the director and said that there was a claim and he > wished > to inspect all of the hands, I would request that all players table > their hand > to ensure that I agreed with the claim contention. I personally think > that a > director that did not do this, was being unnecessarily abrasive and > would not > be doing their club or tournament a favor. A director should be trying > to > ensure that in addition to all laws being followed, that where possible, > all > players enjoyed the experience as per the proprieties of the game Ideally, you should not have to choose between following laws and letting the players enjoy their experience. I don't think Jerry was trying to give an example of good directing; he was trying to show what would happen if he followed the laws as he interprets them. > and > making a player who wanted to inspect all of the hands before moving onto > the next board jump through hoops to do so, is inappropriate. We all know that if the player asks to see a hand, the other player will probably show it and the director will never be called. So this is not a crucial area of the laws. But if you want to have a game where the player is entitled to see all of the hands, just because he wants to, then technically you have to change the laws, as far as I can see. All a player has to do is claim there is a revoke or disagree on the number of tricks won, but I think you are saying (and I agree) that a player should not have to do this to see the remaining cards in a deal. > In this neck > of the woods, where we have quite a number of clubs and directors, this > type of director would find themselves out of work soon. Having run > clubs > in our area for over 25 years, I can tell you, that directors like this > one, their > clubs games get smaller and smaller. Directors that are pleasant and > support their players without making them jump through hoops have games > that get bigger. > > > ________________________________ > From: Jerry Fusselman > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:04:58 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) > >>>> Law 66D >>>> >>>> "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected >>>> to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or >>>> lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, >>>> after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such >>>> a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the >>>> Director shall rule in favour of the other side." >>> > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Don't forget "...or the number of tricks won or lost". We can read >> L66D as establishing a right to inspect the hands based on any >> uncertainty as to whether the board is beiing scored correctly, >> whatever the reason for it. >> > > An excellent point, Eric. Do you think directors would support this > interpretation? I think they should, but consider this dialog: > > > > Me: May I see your remaining cards, West? > > West: Why? > > Me: I want to verify the number of tricks won. > > West: We've already agreed you've got the rest, making 10 tricks. I > won't show you my remaining cards unless a director requires it. > > ... > > Director: Why do you demand to see their cards? > > Me: I want to verify the number of tricks won. > > Director: Looks like 10 to me. > > Me: Alright, I want to verify there were no revokes. > > Director: Which revokes in particular do you assert? > > ------------ > > How could I have handled it better? Who is out of line in this > unfortunate confrontation? > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 17 02:24:58 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:24:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:52:11 -0400, wrote: > Wikinomics, Don Tapscott & Anthony D. Williams, Preface, page xi > > "In 'The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our > Culture', pundit Andrew Keen issues a long bleat claiming the world is > awash with drivel because it is so easy to propagate ideas on the > Internet." > > Robert Frick asserted: > > [snip] > >> here (Long Island) it is usual for players not to show their cards >> following a claim. So they would be behaving normally to fold their >> hand up and not show it following a revoke. It would be generous to >> show one's cards, but I think L9A4 (no obligation to draw attention >> to an infraction) now applies. > > Wikinomics, Don Tapscott & Anthony D. Williams, Preface, page xi > > "As a recent study by 'Nature' revealed, all of our systems of > knowledge production have flaws. 'Encyclopedia Britannica' was found > to have nearly as many errors as Wikipedia -- the key difference is > that Wikipedia's fluid content creation mechanisms and large volunteer > community ensure that its errors get fixed quickly." > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary fixes errors quickly: > > conceal, v.t. Hide or keep secret > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > If a defender usually hides or keeps secret the faces of her cards > remaining after declarer's claim, then if that defender happens to be > knowingly "concealing a card involved in a revoke", force of habit > does not mean that that defender's Law 72B3 infraction is somehow > miraculously transmogrified into a non-infraction. > > By the way, Law 9A4 is an incomplete restatement of Law 72B2. While > one does not normally have to say, "Gosh, I have revoked," Law 72B2 > contains a cross-reference to the exception contained in Law 62A: > > "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregularity before it becomes established." > > Adam Beneschan demonstrably suggested: > > [snip] > >> The correct action is far from obvious to someone who hasn't heard it >> before. And I'd be willing to bet that many people would assume that >> the phrase "A player must not conceal an infraction" applies to >> taking out-of-the-ordinary, positive steps to conceal the infraction; >> and that doing the normal thing after a claim, i.e. acquiescing and >> putting your hand back in the board, is not "concealing an >> infraction" because nothing special was done > > [snip] > > Richard Hills concurs: > > Adam's suggestion is demonstrably true, given that the prolific blmler > Robert Frick failed to cross the pons asinorum. The legal solution to > this problem (and similar problems) is "ignorantia juris non excusat". > > But the practical solution is for Directors to do what retired Quebec > Director Laval Du Breuil once did; hold short seminars on the Laws > for players before sessions. Hi Richard. When you have revoked, if you are not allowed to conceal a card, HOW DO YOU GET THAT CARD BACK IN THE BOARD? If your opponent still doesn't notice the revoke? Face up on top? The point is, of course, that it would be impractical to interpret that law as prohibiting any form of concealment, including the concealment that would normally occur. Adam's "many people" are giving the law a plain reading and they are getting it right. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 17 03:35:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:35:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick shouts an already answered question: >>Hi Richard. When you have revoked, if you are not allowed to >>conceal a card, HOW DO YOU GET THAT CARD BACK IN THE BOARD? If >>your opponent still doesn't notice the revoke? Face up on top? Richard Hills, off-list email sent to Bob yesterday: >If you Know you have revoked, the Lawful procedure is that >followed by Mark Abraham. Leave your cards face up for a time >sufficient for declarer to inspect them. An acute declarer will >realise the non-concealed revoke and summon the Director; an >obtuse declarer will not realise the non-concealed revoke, so >you can now return your cards face-down to the board. Richard Hills current analysis: The basis for Bob's shouted question seems to be a fallacious belief that "draw attention to a revoke" has a one-to-one logical correspondence with "non-concealed revoke". In the "Invisible Revoke" thread many years ago, on a board played late at night I was so tired that I unintentionally revoked while declarer was drawing trumps. I was so tired that I did not realise that I had revoked until too late; the revoke had become established. I then later ruffed for the setting trick. Law 72B3 refers to "concealing a card involved in a revoke", but taking the setting trick with the revoke card is the opposite of concealment. Declarer and dummy were so tired that they did not realise that my obviously non-concealed revoke had occurred. But although my revoke was obviously non-concealed, I used Law 72B2 to avoid drawing attention to the obviously non-concealed revoke; I did not say, "Gosh, I have revoked." Rather, I accepted the game swing pursuant to Law 10C4: "Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)." What's the problem? The problem is that I am unhappy with Law 72B2 and Law 9A4 as they are currently written, and would be much happier if those two Laws were reversed in the 2018 edition of The Fabulous Law Book. But obeying the current Lawbook is the Prime Directive of the game of Duplicate Bridge (see Law 72A); merely a secondary condition is my pursuit of happiness. Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers: The third "right"? - the "pursuit of happiness"? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can "pursue happiness" as long as my brain lives - but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 17 10:24:19 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:24:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:35:02 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick shouts an already answered question: > >>> Hi Richard. When you have revoked, if you are not allowed to >>> conceal a card, HOW DO YOU GET THAT CARD BACK IN THE BOARD? If >>> your opponent still doesn't notice the revoke? Face up on top? > > Richard Hills, off-list email sent to Bob yesterday: > >> If you Know you have revoked, the Lawful procedure is that >> followed by Mark Abraham. Leave your cards face up for a time >> sufficient for declarer to inspect them. An acute declarer will >> realise the non-concealed revoke and summon the Director; an >> obtuse declarer will not realise the non-concealed revoke, so >> you can now return your cards face-down to the board. > > Richard Hills current analysis: > > The basis for Bob's shouted question seems to be a fallacious > belief that "draw attention to a revoke" has a one-to-one logical > correspondence with "non-concealed revoke". No, that was not the basis for my answer. Thank you for helping me clarify my reasoning. 1. During the play, I hold my cards so as to conceal them from the other players. 2. After a trick is completed, I turn my card face down on the table, concealing it from the other players. 3. If I show my entire remaining cards to the opponents, the act of then turning them face down conceals them. 4. When declarer claims and I put my cards face down, then I am just continuing to conceal them. If doing the fourth one (to a card I should have played to a trick on which I revoked) is an infraction, then they are all infractions. The law does not differentiate them. But that's ridiculous -- I do not have to display the offending card during play; I am allowed to turn it over following completion of a trick. Therefore, #4 is not an infraction (reductio ad absurdum). A more practical and commonsensical interpretation of "concealing a card involved in a revoke" is that I cannot hide the revoking card while I am otherwise showing my cards (either voluntarily or by instruction from the director). In other words, when I am being deceptive. The general thrust of L72B3 is that if my offending card would be revealed during the normal course of play or procedures, I must allow it to be revealed; if I was required to show my cards following a claim, it would be a violation of L72B3 not to do so when I have revoked. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 17 12:19:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:19:21 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <4090077.1245233961570.JavaMail.root@ps27> +=+ I am at the European Championships in Sanremo, Italy. All this noise is keeping me awake. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 18 01:11:39 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:11:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4090077.1245233961570.JavaMail.root@ps27> Message-ID: Rick Riordan, Percy Jackson and the Last Olympian, pp 6-7: "She'd even been there last summer when the chopped-up Lord Kronos rose out of his coffin in a terrible new form, and she'd earned my permanent respect by nailing him in the eye with a blue plastic hairbrush." Lord Endicott wrote: +=+ I am at the European Championships in Sanremo, Italy. All this noise is keeping me awake. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Touche. A subtle suggestion that Bob and myself are creating white noise by unnecessarily debating a straightforward Law. On the other hand, Bob's most recent posting is in the form of a syllogistic argument, so I will respond with my syllogistic argument before exiting this white noise thread. Robert Frick syllogism: 1. During the play, I hold my cards so as to conceal them from the other players. 2. After a trick is completed, I turn my card face down on the table, concealing it from the other players. 3. If I show my entire remaining cards to the opponents, the act of then turning them face down conceals them. 4. When declarer claims and I put my cards face down, then I am just continuing to conceal them. If doing the fourth one (to a card I should have played to a trick on which I revoked) is an infraction, then they are all infractions. The law does not differentiate them. But that's ridiculous -- I do not have to display the offending card during play; I am allowed to turn it over following completion of a trick. Therefore, #4 is not an infraction (reductio ad absurdum). Richard Hills syllogism: 1. At the start of the play, I attempt to hold my cards so as to conceal them from the other players. Kind opponents sometimes notice my limp wrist, then warn me to hold my cards more upright. As I play to each trick, a formerly concealed card is now displayed to all three opponents. 2. After a trick is completed, my card is turned face down, but is not in any way now concealed (dictionary definition of conceal is "hide or keep secret"). The fact that my card was a fourteenth trump revoke card is information that no longer is "kept secret", but rather now known to all three opponents (albeit obviously not correctly analysed by two of the opponents). The fact that my card is now face down in a Law 65C "orderly overlapping row in the sequence played, so as to permit review of the play after its completion" means that my face down card is not in any way a "hidden" card. 3. If I show my entire remaining cards to the opponents, they have now been revealed (dictionary definition "not concealed") and any subsequent action taken by me with those cards does not alter this fact. 4. If declarer claims and I illegally put my remaining cards face down (without ever revealing them) when those concealed cards contain a known revoke card, then I am infracting Law 72B3. If declarer claims and I legally put my remaining cards face down (without ever revealing them) when I have not revoked, then I am not infracting Law 72B3. Law 72B3 does differentiate between concealed revoke cards and concealed legal cards. Therefore, #4 is not in any way a reductio ad absurdum. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 18 02:05:03 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:05:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:11:39 -0400, wrote: > Rick Riordan, Percy Jackson and the Last Olympian, pp 6-7: > > "She'd even been there last summer when the chopped-up Lord Kronos > rose out of his coffin in a terrible new form, and she'd earned my > permanent respect by nailing him in the eye with a blue plastic > hairbrush." > > Lord Endicott wrote: > > +=+ I am at the European Championships in Sanremo, Italy. All this > noise is keeping me awake. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Touche. A subtle suggestion that Bob and myself are creating > white noise by unnecessarily debating a straightforward Law. On > the other hand, Bob's most recent posting is in the form of a > syllogistic argument, so I will respond with my syllogistic > argument before exiting this white noise thread. Instead of trying to find a flaw in my reasoning? > > Robert Frick syllogism: > > 1. During the play, I hold my cards so as to conceal them from the > other players. > > 2. After a trick is completed, I turn my card face down on the > table, concealing it from the other players. > > 3. If I show my entire remaining cards to the opponents, the act > of then turning them face down conceals them. > > 4. When declarer claims and I put my cards face down, then I am > just continuing to conceal them. > > If doing the fourth one (to a card I should have played to a trick > on which I revoked) is an infraction, then they are all > infractions. The law does not differentiate them. But that's > ridiculous -- I do not have to display the offending card during > play; I am allowed to turn it over following completion of a trick. > > Therefore, #4 is not an infraction (reductio ad absurdum). > > Richard Hills syllogism: > > 1. At the start of the play, I attempt to hold my cards so as to > conceal them from the other players. Kind opponents sometimes > notice my limp wrist, then warn me to hold my cards more upright. > As I play to each trick, a formerly concealed card is now displayed > to all three opponents. > > 2. After a trick is completed, my card is turned face down, but is > not in any way now concealed (dictionary definition of conceal is > "hide or keep secret"). Richard has constructed the notion that once a card is revealed, it cannot be concealed. That doesn't fit the common sense definition of conceal, because we all know we can conceal something that was once revealed.. Nor does it work. I revoke. Later I play the offending card, showing to my opponents. I now place it face down. Richard says that is not concealing it, because I have already shown it. Fine so far. Later my opponents ask to see my whole hand. I place the offending card behind another card so that the opponents do not see it. For Richard's current definition, that does not count as an L72B3 infraction, because in that law, I cannot conceal what I have once revealed. > The fact that my card was a fourteenth > trump revoke card is information that no longer is "kept secret", > but rather now known to all three opponents (albeit obviously not > correctly analysed by two of the opponents). The fact that my card > is now face down in a Law 65C "orderly overlapping row in the > sequence played, so as to permit review of the play after its > completion" means that my face down card is not in any way a > "hidden" card. > > 3. If I show my entire remaining cards to the opponents, they have > now been revealed (dictionary definition "not concealed") and any > subsequent action taken by me with those cards does not alter this > fact. > > 4. If declarer claims and I illegally put my remaining cards face > down (without ever revealing them) > when those concealed cards > contain a known revoke card, then I am infracting Law 72B3. Richard knows that if he wants to prove some conclusion logically, he should not assume it as a premise. So I am going to assume this is supposed to be the conclusion. Let's see.... Richard has a known revoke card in his hand, which he is concealing. Is that a violation of L72B3? According to his definition, it is. Put another way, Richard is concealing the card in his hand, then following the claim he is concealing the card by placing it face down on the table. It's status doesn't change, and the law isn't going to easily distinguish the two. Again, the common sense interpretation of L72B3 is that when proper procedure is to show a card, you cannot attempt to conceal it just because it will reveal your revoke. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 18 09:22:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:22:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sum thing gnu [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Percy Jackson and the Last Olympian, page 123: "Husband, we talked about this," Persephone chided. "You can't go around incinerating every hero. Besides, he's brave. I like that." Hades rolled his eyes. "You liked that Orpheus fellow too. Look how well that turned out. Let me kill him, just a little bit." Grattan Endicott, excerpt of letter to The Bridge World, June 2009: The February Editorial praises the 2007 Laws for replacing "penalty" with "rectification" in cases of score adjustment to restore equity. The distinguished voice of William J. Schoder was strong in pursuit of this improvement; others, myself included, offered gentle support. [snip] Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 18 09:53:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:53:34 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <4669131.1245311614692.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> "Later my opponents ask to see my whole hand. I place the offending card behind another card so that the opponents do not see it." Did someone really say this? Nonsense. Not only is it a breach of law but it is also unsporting behaviour. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090618/50f59d72/attachment.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Jun 18 10:18:27 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:18:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Same card played twice Message-ID: <1MHCpH-0YEaW00@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> South declares in 6H, defenders got 1 trick already. The trump situation at the crucial point is: dummy: 76 LHO: --- RHO: 10 declarer: Q2 The remaining cards of declarer and/or dummy are good. The last trick was ruffed by declarer with her trump 2, after which she thought for a while, all other players turning their card. At some point dummy asked "Is this H 2 the lead to the trick?" Declarer startled and said "Yes", after which East won this trick with the 10 and conceeded (immediately) afterwards, so that nobody noticed the unmatching number of the remaining cards. Only after round ended NS found out about this impossible line of play and summoned the TD. The facts above are agreed by all players. Ok, had the TD been called during play he would have applied Law 76 B1, probably resulting in a score of 2 down (1 trick early, one trick to the H 10 and 1 trick rectification). But now, play having ceased ? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Jun 18 11:12:49 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:12:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Same card played twice In-Reply-To: <1MHCpH-0YEaW00@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1MHCpH-0YEaW00@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: 2009/6/18 Peter Eidt : > South declares in 6H, defenders got 1 trick already. > > The trump situation at the crucial point is: > dummy: 76 > LHO: --- > RHO: 10 > declarer: Q2 > > The remaining cards of declarer and/or dummy are good. > > The last trick was ruffed by declarer with her trump 2, after > which she thought for a while, all other players turning their > card. > At some point dummy asked "Is this H 2 the lead to the trick?" > Declarer startled and said "Yes", after which East won this > trick with the 10 and conceeded (immediately) afterwards, so > that nobody noticed the unmatching number of the > remaining cards. > Only after round ended NS found out about this impossible > line of play and summoned the TD. > The facts above are agreed by all players. > > Ok, had the TD been called during play he would have applied > Law 76 B1, probably resulting in a score of 2 down (1 trick > early, one trick to the H 10 and 1 trick rectification). Law 76 is about spectators. What law did you intend to adress here? > > But now, play having ceased ? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Jun 18 11:29:49 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:29:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Same_card_played_twice?= In-Reply-To: References: <1MHCpH-0YEaW00@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <1MHDwL-14SbsO0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> ooops ;-( make it 67, please. From: Harald Skj?ran > 2009/6/18 Peter Eidt : > > South declares in 6H, defenders got 1 trick already. > > > > The trump situation at the crucial point is: > > dummy: 76 > > LHO: --- > > RHO: 10 > > declarer: Q2 > > > > The remaining cards of declarer and/or dummy are good. > > > > The last trick was ruffed by declarer with her trump 2, after > > which she thought for a while, all other players turning their > > card. > > At some point dummy asked "Is this H 2 the lead to the trick?" > > Declarer startled and said "Yes", after which East won this > > trick with the 10 and conceeded (immediately) afterwards, so > > that nobody noticed the unmatching number of the > > remaining cards. > > Only after round ended NS found out about this impossible > > line of play and summoned the TD. > > The facts above are agreed by all players. > > > > Ok, had the TD been called during play he would have applied > > Law 76 B1, probably resulting in a score of 2 down (1 trick > > early, one trick to the H 10 and 1 trick rectification). > > Law 76 is about spectators. What law did you intend to adress here? > > > > > But now, play having ceased ? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 18 13:31:02 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:31:02 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Same card played twice Message-ID: <31327991.1245324662026.JavaMail.root@ps30> The last trick was ruffed by declarer with her trump 2, after which she thought for a while, all other players turning their card. At some point dummy asked "Is this H 2 the lead to the trick?" Declarer startled and said "Yes", after which East won this trick with the 10 and conceeded (immediately) afterwards, so that nobody noticed the unmatching number of the remaining cards. Only after round ended NS found out about this impossible line of play and summoned the TD. The facts above are agreed by all players. < Ok, had the TD been called during play he would have applied Law 67 B1, probably resulting in a score of 2 down (1 trick early, one trick to the H 10 and 1 trick rectification). << < But now, play having ceased ? <<; +=+ Feeling my way tentatively through the laws I have followed this path: 1.The play of the trump 2 is illegal - violation of Law 44A. The card is no longer 'in his hand'. 2. The card is withrawn. Law 47B. 3. The remaining cards played to the trick are withdrawn: Laws 47D and 62C2. 4. The sight of the defender's trump ten conveys UI to declarer. Law 16D. So declarer is restricted in respect of drawing the trump. 5. The Director will award an adjusted score, taking the foregoing into account. He may also wish to admonish, at least, dummy for violation of Law 43A1(c). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 18 17:15:49 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:15:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A3A5A25.4090707@yahoo.co.uk> [Marvin L French] I didn't make myself clear, evidently. Here are three possible choices when UI is created, other than the null choice of ignoring it at the time. Let's say it's a very speedy double: 1. "That double seemed rather fast." (saying nothing more) 2. "That double seemed rather fast, and we may need the Director at end of play." 3. "We may need the Director at end of play" (not saying why). I am saying in the UI guide that 1 and 3 are not proper, leaving 2 as the only choice if the UI is not ignored at the time. I think this is what L16B2 is saying. Am I wrong? After using 2, there is no further conversation about the UI. If the opponents want to deny it, I am not going to tell them they should call the TD. It's not up to me to teach opponents about the Laws... [Nigel] IMO ... If you discern UI then you *may* call the director but it must usually be better to ask opponents to confirm the UI. I think that the form of words should elicit a clear *confirmation* or *denial* from opponents. For example "Do you agree that your double was rather fast?" The law should stipulate that this isn't drawing attention to an infraction because it isn't clear that any infraction has occurred yet. At this early stage, only if the opponent denies transmitting UI, should the director be called; but if the opponent does dispute your contention, I think that you should call the director, to establish the facts. Amusingly, when one BLMLer suggests a correction to the laws, another BLMLer often immediately claims that no correction is necessary because that is what the law already means. A law is still practically flawed if a substantial number of players, who read it, cannot discern its intended meaning. The correction or "clarification" of this kind on anomaly should be incorporated, directly in place, replacing the original text, in an HTML web-version of the law-book, on the WBF website. This ensures that players can consult it quickly and easily. It is less effective to include it in a minute, read by a handful of directors. Sensible procedures like Marv's should be the *default* protocols in TFLB (This does not preclude local legislatures defining a local exception -- although, it is hard to imagine why any would want to do so). From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 18 21:46:25 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:46:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4669131.1245311614692.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <4669131.1245311614692.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:53:34 -0400, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > "Later my opponents ask to see my whole hand. I place the offending card > behind another card so that the opponents do not see it." > > Did someone really say this? Nonsense. Not only is it a breach of law > but it is also unsporting behaviour. The question is if it violates L72B3. I interpret L72B3 as that it does -- you are concealing a card to try to hide the fact that you revoked. According to Richard, the above is an L65D infraction and and an Law 72B1 infraction, but not an L72B3 infraction, because (in my words but Richard's interpretation) you cannot conceal a card you have already shown. (I have no idea why it would be an L65D infraction; curiously, it is probably not an L66D infraction, if you get to that.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 19 00:33:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:33:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sum thing gnu [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, excerpt of letter to The Bridge World, June 2009: The February Editorial praises the 2007 Laws for replacing "penalty" with "rectification" in cases of score adjustment to restore equity. The distinguished voice of William J. Schoder was strong in pursuit of this improvement; others, myself included, offered gentle support. [snip] Richard Hills: At the 2001 Kansas City NABC, a non-offending pair chose to appeal, not because they thought that they had been damaged by an incorrect Director's ruling, but rather because they thought that their offending opponents had been insufficiently penalised. The replacement of "penalty" with "rectification" means that such dubious appeals now lack any Lawful justification. 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 Jun 19 06:43:46 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:43:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs References: <4A3A5A25.4090707@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel writes: > [Marvin L French] > I didn't make myself clear, evidently. Here are three possible > choices when UI is created, other than the null choice of ignoring > it at the time. Let's say it's a very speedy double: > 1. "That double seemed rather fast." (saying nothing more) > 2. "That double seemed rather fast, and we may need the Director > at > end of play." > 3. "We may need the Director at end of play" (not saying why). > I am saying in the UI guide that 1 and 3 are not proper, leaving 2 > as the only choice if the UI is not ignored at the time. I think > this is what L16B2 is saying. Am I wrong? > After using 2, there is no further conversation about the UI. If > the > opponents want to deny it, I am not going to tell them they should > call the TD. It's not up to me to teach opponents about the > Laws... > > [Nigel] IMO ... > > If you discern UI then you *may* call the director but it must > usually > be better to ask opponents to confirm the UI. I think that the > form of > words should elicit a clear *confirmation* or *denial* from > opponents. > For example "Do you agree that your double was rather fast?" There is no requirement that I get an agreement. I don't like to argue with people, and any such discussion should be chaired by the TD, with remarks addressed only to the TD. > > The law should stipulate that this isn't drawing attention to an > infraction because it isn't clear that any infraction has occurred > yet. The law doesn't have to stipulate that, it's perfectly clear. > > At this early stage, only if the opponent denies transmitting UI, > should > the director be called; but if the opponent does dispute your > contention, I think that you should call the director, to > establish the > facts. Then get the law changed. As it reads now it is not I who should call the TD. Please read L16B2 carefully. Last sentence: The opponents should summon the director immediately if the dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed. Not me! > > Amusingly, when one BLMLer suggests a correction to the laws, > another > BLMLer often immediately claims that no correction is necessary > because > that is what the law already means. A law is still practically > flawed if > a substantial number of players, who read it, cannot discern its > intended meaning. L16B2 is pretty clear, the only doubtful point really not very doubtful. In the presence of possibly-damaging UI, you may announce that you reserve the right to call the TD later. That necessarily implies that you have commented on the existence of the UI. The sentence quoted above reinforces that implication. What is unclear? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 19 07:41:45 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:41:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <572142.25909.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Eric Landau, excellent point: >>>Don't forget "...or the number of tricks won or lost". We can >>>read L66D as establishing a right to inspect the hands based on >>>any uncertainty as to whether the board is being scored >>>correctly, whatever the reason for it. Jerry Fusselman, truncated dialogue: >>An excellent point, Eric. Do you think directors would support >>this interpretation? I think they should, but consider this >>dialog: >> >> >> >>Me: May I see your remaining cards, West? >> >>West: Why? >> >>Me: I want to verify the number of tricks won. [snip] Ted Ying, comment wrenched out of context: [snip] >A director should be trying to ensure that in addition to all >laws being followed, that where possible, all players enjoyed the >experience [snip] Richard Hills, alternative dialogue: Me: May I take and look at all of your cards, West? West: Why? Me: I want to work out whether a double squeeze would have been more successful than my actual finesse. Law 7B3, second sentence: "No player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy's cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of the Director." Law 90B2, 3, 5 and 8: "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): 2. unduly slow play by a contestant. 3. discussion of the bidding, play or result of a board, which may be overheard at another table. 5. touching or handling of cards belonging to another player (see Law 7). 8. failure to comply _promptly_ with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director." 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 Jun 19 09:17:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:17:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn, August 2005: >>Does this mean that if I bid Blackwood, and my partner >>says "5H - that shows two aces, you know", I may not do >>anything suggested by the information that he has two >>aces? Richard Hills, August 2005: >I note that I have occasionally used Blackwood, gained a >correct response from partner, then bid a slam off two >aces because I miscounted the number of aces shown. > >:-) 2007 Law 16A1(d): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." 2007 Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Richard Hills, June 2009: Given my imperfect memory (often recalling that 5H = three aces), if my partner reminded me that her 5H bid showed only two aces opposite my zero aces, then the Director would be compelled by Law 40C3(a) to adjust my contract from 5S making to 6S one off. Given David Burn's perfect memory, if his partner gave a superfluous reminder that her 5H showed two aces opposite David's zero aces, then the Director would be compelled by Law 16A1(d) to retain the table contract of 5S making. In both cases, however, the partner would receive a severe procedural penalty for her gratuitous remark. Neither David nor myself would receive a procedural penalty, since obviously we would only have such a partner when we were playing in an individual event. 2007 Law 12C3: "In individual events the Director enforces the rectifications in these Laws, and the provisions requiring the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members of the offending side even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity. But the Director shall not award a procedural penalty against the offender's partner if of the opinion that he is in no way to blame." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 19 09:48:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:48:58 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs Message-ID: <26806818.1245397738682.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com >Date: 19/06/2009 5:43 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players &am >> ..........................\x/........................................ As it (Law 16B2) reads now it is not I who should call the TD. >> +=+ True. However, if the RA requires that the Director be called the requirement devolves upon all at the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 19 10:13:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:13:34 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <3341600.1245399214413.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> ;----Original Message---- ;From: rfrick at rfrick.info ;Date: 18/06/2009 20:46 ;To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ;Subj: Re: [BLML] The Quibbler [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ; (Grattan) ; "Later my opponents ask to see my whole hand. I place the offending card ; behind another card so that the opponents do not see it." Did someone really say this? Nonsense. Not only is it a breach of law ; but it is also unsporting behaviour. (RF) According to Richard, the above is an L65D infraction and a Law 72B1 ;infraction, but not an L72B3 infraction, because (in my words but Richard's interpretation) you cannot conceal a card you have already shown. +=+ If you are reporting Richard accurately he is talking utter rubbish. It is a specific violation of Law 72B3 and furthermore, done deliberately it is a grossly unsporting action calling for application of Law 91. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 19 15:00:57 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:00:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [Bulk] Re: Marv's UI guide for players & TDs In-Reply-To: References: <4A3A5A25.4090707@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4A3B8C09.6010203@yahoo.co.uk> [Marvin French] L16B2 is pretty clear, the only doubtful point really not very doubtful. In the presence of possibly-damaging UI, you may announce that you reserve the right to call the TD later. That necessarily implies that you have commented on the existence of the UI. The sentence quoted above reinforces that implication. What is unclear? [Nigel] Marv knows I'm no law-expert. But, earlier in this thread, there seemed to be different interpretations of the correct UI procedure, as currently laid down in the laws. And different suggestions for future improvements. Anyway, if the law-book already clearly describes Marv's suggested UI protocol, then why do we need Marv's separate UI guide? If the current law is unclear, however, I feel that the law-book should be clarified, in place, so that ordinary players have the opportunity to discover what they are meant to do. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 19 20:13:36 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:13:36 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs References: <26806818.1245397738682.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: > As it (Law 16B2) reads now it is not I who should call > the TD. >>> > +=+ True. However, if the RA requires that the Director > be called the requirement devolves upon all at the table. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Everything I write is parochial in nature, just for ACBL-land. The ACBL has decided not to adopt this requirement, foregoing its previous murky election in the 1997 Laws. It will be difficult to educate ACBL members in regard to UI, as their instinctive reaction to UI is to call the TD immediately, saying it is required. That is no longer true, but no one seems to know it. I will try to get Mike Flader to write a column based on my guide if I ever get it done. I hope the NABC Daily Bulletins will also provide some instruction. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From adam at tameware.com Sat Jun 20 05:22:15 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:22:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] My comments on the Houston NABC+ cases In-Reply-To: <694eadd40906190848v23a0d65q15113ade53746084@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40906190848v23a0d65q15113ade53746084@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40906192022i1fd0b93eqc351c821c3f9406a@mail.gmail.com> The cases are here: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Houston2009.html If you follow up please start a separate thread for each case. 1. I like the rulings. I see no merit to the appeal. South seemed to have trouble understanding the concept that a pair might not have an agreement about a sequence. 2. The TD got the main part of the case right, but missed a trick in the adjustment. The AC improved the ruling. The write-up should note that after the 3D skip bid a hesitation of about 10 seconds is required, whether or not the Stop card is used. See http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card.html for my thoughts on the ACBL?s current policy regarding the stop card. 3. I agree with the TD and AC rulings. 4. I agree with the AC and TD rulings. It?s close whether this one had merit ? I have no quarrel with the AC who found that it did. 5. I agree with the AC and TD rulings. I don?t think it was as close as the AC thought it was. I have no trouble finding a West hand where EW are off two cashers. How about AKQJTx xxx KQ KQ? West should have planned his auction so as to avoid the telling hesitation over 5D. East knew his partner had failed in this responsibility and he ought to have known pass was in his best interest. When he bids he'll keep a bad score and lose a good one. He was lucky to end up with +480. With a different lie of the cards he could have been ?50. 6. Good work all around. 7. This is the first time I've seen the new law 12c1d applied. To my mind both the law itself and this application of it are unsatisfactory. The law seems intended for lower levels of the game. Some club TDs might well be unwilling or unable to do the work required to rule under 12c1e. I hope we won?t see 12c1d in future NABC+ cases. In practice it will serve simply as an invitation to appeal, for one side or the other. To my mind the AC improved on the TD?s ruling. 8. I chaired this AC. The next day a fellow AC member realized that we had an excellent reason to assess a PP against EW. Their method was not listed on their convention card. This may not warrant a PP in and of itself, but it is a clear violation of correct procedure and deserves a penalty when it leads to the kind of problem it did here. 9. Good work all around ? a well thought out ruling. 10. A close call. I have no objection to either the TD or the AC ruling. 11. A tricky case. I prefer the AC?s ruling to the TD?s. If West committed an infraction then NS are due redress. 12.? I like the rulings. I see no merit in the appeal. 13. A close call. I could see another AC ruling differently. 14. I prefer the AC?s ruling to the TD?s. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sat Jun 20 05:23:54 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:23:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] My comments on the Houston Non-NABC+ cases Message-ID: <694eadd40906192023h48448390ta436dcb6c453f109@mail.gmail.com> The cases are here: ?http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Houston2009.html If you follow up please start a separate thread for each case. 1. I see no merit to the appeal. 2. Open and shut. I don?t think we should ever hear an appeal without a signed appeal form. That way the appellants acknowledge that they are in jeopardy of an AWMW, a poorer score than they had coming in, or both. It?s not clear from the write-up whether a form was signed here. 3. A tricky case. I can?t fault either the TD?s or the Panel?s decision. 4. I see no merit to the appeal. Whether we should be in the business of regulating opening bid strength is a separate matter. 5. No merit, and no reason to hold a hearing at all without a signed appeal form. I appreciate that the directing staff were trying to do their best, but I don?t think anyone?s interest is served when we cannot follow our standard procedures. 6. I like the rulings. I disagree with the rationale for the AWMW. A pair has a right to an appeal if they believe that justice was not done, regardless of the effect on their score. 7. I fail to see the merit. 8. I agree that the appeal had merit ? it?s not clear to me what the BIT suggests. Kudos to the panel for asking exactly that in their second poll. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jun 20 11:00:31 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:00:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] My comments on the Houston NABC+ cases In-Reply-To: <694eadd40906192022i1fd0b93eqc351c821c3f9406a@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40906190848v23a0d65q15113ade53746084@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40906192022i1fd0b93eqc351c821c3f9406a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A3CA52F.8060607@aol.com> Hola Adam! Thanks for the material. There is a note saying that the expert commentary will be available in about a month. Could you, or Marv or anyone else announce this on blml? And, a suggestion: I have downloaded (and printed) the material. It is more comfortable to read it while sitting on the sofa (or elsewhere) and not at the computer. I don't know how many others do this but suspect that many do. When the expert commentary is available it can only be downloaded with the cases. (At least I can't download it without printing the cases again but I am a computer anti-talent.) This wastes paper and time since I can then throw away the stuff I had printed earlier. (Cases without commentary.) Would it be possible to print the commentary separately so that we could print it and insert it in the material already printed and thus not have to print all of the cases twice? Thanks again, JE Adam Wildavsky schrieb: > The cases are here: > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Houston2009.html > > If you follow up please start a separate thread for each case. > > 1. I like the rulings. I see no merit to the appeal. South seemed to > have trouble understanding the concept that a pair might not have an > agreement about a sequence. > > 2. The TD got the main part of the case right, but missed a trick in > the adjustment. The AC improved the ruling. The write-up should note > that after the 3D skip bid a hesitation of about 10 seconds is > required, whether or not the Stop card is used. See > http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card.html for my thoughts on > the ACBL?s current policy regarding the stop card. > > 3. I agree with the TD and AC rulings. > > 4. I agree with the AC and TD rulings. It?s close whether this one had > merit ? I have no quarrel with the AC who found that it did. > > 5. I agree with the AC and TD rulings. I don?t think it was as close > as the AC thought it was. I have no trouble finding a West hand where > EW are off two cashers. How about AKQJTx xxx KQ KQ? West should have > planned his auction so as to avoid the telling hesitation over 5D. > East knew his partner had failed in this responsibility and he ought > to have known pass was in his best interest. When he bids he'll keep a > bad score and lose a good one. He was lucky to end up with +480. With > a different lie of the cards he could have been ?50. > > 6. Good work all around. > > 7. This is the first time I've seen the new law 12c1d applied. To my > mind both the law itself and this application of it are > unsatisfactory. The law seems intended for lower levels of the game. > Some club TDs might well be unwilling or unable to do the work > required to rule under 12c1e. I hope we won?t see 12c1d in future > NABC+ cases. In practice it will serve simply as an invitation to > appeal, for one side or the other. > > To my mind the AC improved on the TD?s ruling. > > 8. I chaired this AC. The next day a fellow AC member realized that we > had an excellent reason to assess a PP against EW. Their method was > not listed on their convention card. This may not warrant a PP in and > of itself, but it is a clear violation of correct procedure and > deserves a penalty when it leads to the kind of problem it did here. > > 9. Good work all around ? a well thought out ruling. > > 10. A close call. I have no objection to either the TD or the AC ruling. > > 11. A tricky case. I prefer the AC?s ruling to the TD?s. If West > committed an infraction then NS are due redress. > > 12. I like the rulings. I see no merit in the appeal. > > 13. A close call. I could see another AC ruling differently. > > 14. I prefer the AC?s ruling to the TD?s. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 20 11:52:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:52:16 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs Message-ID: <8033135.1245491536623.JavaMail.root@ps37.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com >Date: 19/06/2009 19:13 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Marv's UI guide for players & TDs > > > >Everything I write is parochial in nature, <<<< +=+ Henceforward I shall think of you as the Parish Priest +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jun 20 16:55:19 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:55:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston NABC+ case 8 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40906192022i1fd0b93eqc351c821c3f9406a@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40906190848v23a0d65q15113ade53746084@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40906192022i1fd0b93eqc351c821c3f9406a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CE81524D3154836BCC165A3E5FD501F@erdos> >8. I chaired this AC. The next day a fellow AC member realized that we >had an excellent reason to assess a PP against EW. Their method was >not listed on their convention card. This may not warrant a PP in and >of itself, but it is a clear violation of correct procedure and >deserves a penalty when it leads to the kind of problem it did here. I don't agree with a PP for not listing this method on the convention card, as there isn't a natural place to list it on the ACBL convention card. There are too many common conventions to list defenses against all of them in a pairs game. Few convention cards say, "Mathe over big club" (probably the most common defense, although not what this pair plays), and even that isn't proper as the opponents will still have to ask what a bid means if a convention is identified only by name. For that matter, having the method listed on the card wouldn't avoid the problem; the auction 1C-(P)-1D-(2S) sounds natural, and unless 2S is alerted, there is no reason the 1C bidder would look at the convention card. In an event at this level, a PP could be appropriate for an established pair not knowing their defenses against a strong club; I don't know how established this pair was. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jun 20 17:19:14 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:19:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40906192023h48448390ta436dcb6c453f109@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40906192023h48448390ta436dcb6c453f109@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8DC68BAB88954C878245C5E6DACFC1EF@erdos> Facts: South had opened 1C, East wound up on lead against 6S, and West asked, "Is 1C Precision?" before East put his lead face down. East then led a club to beat the slam. A PP should have been imposed by the TD here, as West's question was equivalent to telling partner that he wanted a club lead, and asking something which he should have already known. (And he even had a legal way to request the lead; he could have doubled the final contract.) The AC could also have imposed a PP because the TD neglected to do it, although a PP imposed by the AC would have been irrelevant since the offenders had already lost the KO match when they did not get a score adjustment. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jun 20 17:42:53 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:42:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC+ case 8 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40906192023h48448390ta436dcb6c453f109@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40906192023h48448390ta436dcb6c453f109@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <66ABBF58066A412B84D50012F66EA684@erdos> The auction on this case was 1NT-2H-2S-..3S-4S. >8. I agree that the appeal had merit ? it?s not clear to me what the >BIT suggests. Kudos to the panel for asking exactly that in their >second poll. Agreed. The ruling made no sense to me in isolation, as I don't have any idea, as a Flight A player, what that slow invitiation suggests. It could be light (considering pass) or only five spades with distribution (considering 2NT or bidding a second suit), and is unlikely to be heavy since 4S is a slam try. Most likely, I would conclude that partner just got confused and ignore the hesitation. But the panel polled a lot of Flight C players, and the poll determined that in Flight C a slow invitation suggests extra values. So this is a great case of a ruling in which justice was done, and was seen to be done. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 20 18:57:16 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:57:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 Message-ID: You hold AJxxx AQ KJ10x Kx You open 1S, partner bids 2D, you bid 3D, and partner jumps to 4NT, Blackwood. You bid 5S, incorrectly showing 2 key cards and the queen of diamonds. Your partner bids 6D. At the actual table, there was a hesitation before partner's 6D bid. Does that provide any useful UI or suggest one bid over another? (IMO, great job by the directors and committee on the NABC cases.) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jun 20 19:38:11 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:38:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16BA225788894FBCA0A274E329209E94@erdos> From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 > You hold > > AJxxx > AQ > KJ10x > Kx > > You open 1S, partner bids 2D, you bid 3D, and partner jumps to 4NT, > Blackwood. You bid 5S, incorrectly showing 2 key cards and the queen of > diamonds. Your partner bids 6D. > > At the actual table, there was a hesitation before partner's 6D bid. Does > that provide any useful UI or suggest one bid over another? Yes, because it woke you up to your error. If you bid 5S intending to show three key cards, you were planning to pass partner's 6D. The UI wakes you up to the fact that you miscounted and partner has two key cards (with one, he would pass 5S), and also passes the information that partner probably has the DQ (without it, he would have no reason to hesitate over 5S). Therefore, the UI demonstrably suggests 7D over 6D. It does not demonstrably suggest 6NT over 6D, so I would allow a 6NT bid, which is a LA at matchpoints. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 20 20:16:21 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:16:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: <16BA225788894FBCA0A274E329209E94@erdos> References: <16BA225788894FBCA0A274E329209E94@erdos> Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:38:11 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:57 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 > > >> You hold >> >> AJxxx >> AQ >> KJ10x >> Kx >> >> You open 1S, partner bids 2D, you bid 3D, and partner jumps to 4NT, >> Blackwood. You bid 5S, incorrectly showing 2 key cards and the queen of >> diamonds. Your partner bids 6D. >> >> At the actual table, there was a hesitation before partner's 6D bid. >> Does >> that provide any useful UI or suggest one bid over another? > > Yes, because it woke you up to your error. > If you bid 5S intending to show > three key cards, you were planning to pass partner's 6D. The UI wakes > you up to > the fact that you miscounted I have never taken my partner's hesitations as implying that I have misbid, nor have I ever seen a hesitation taken as showing that information. For example, the last time I played declarer led a club from her hand, and I spent more than a minute deciding what to play when it was very obvious I should just play my lowest club because declarer was going to ruff in dummy. It never occurred to anyone at the table that declarer had led from the wrong hand. > and partner has two key cards (with one, he would > pass 5S), You know this because you have seen the hands. But for all the player knows, partner has a spade void. The fact is, if partner has only one key card, he has a serious problem. Should he stop in 5 spades with just two spades? Should he bid 5S and hope that is a transfer to 5NT? Should be bid 6D and hope the missing key card is the king of diamonds and the slam is 50%? So partner is very likely to hesitate with only one key card. IMO. > and also passes the information that partner probably has the DQ > (without it, he would have no reason to hesitate over 5S). With it, he has no reason to hesitate over 5S. Except if he is trying to untangle why both of us have the queen of diamonds. But to me this falls into the category of unfathomable reasons why partner might be hesitating. The fact is, partner had a legitimate reason for the hesitation, and the player never figured that out (it too falling in the unfathomable category). > > Therefore, the UI demonstrably suggests 7D over 6D. It does not > demonstrably > suggest 6NT over 6D, so I would allow a 6NT bid, which is a LA at > matchpoints. Doubtful to me, but that's not the issue I am concerned about. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 21 09:32:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:32:34 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 Message-ID: <5262210.1245569554221.JavaMail.root@ps24> >----Original Message---- >From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu >Date: 20/06/2009 16:19 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 > .......................................................................................................... > >The AC could also have imposed a PP because the TD neglected to do it, although >a PP imposed by the AC would have been irrelevant since the offenders had >already lost the KO match when they did not get a score adjustment. > +=+ I have only a passing acquaintance with ACBL regulations, but the principle here surely is to issue at least a strong admonishment or its equivalent, for the record. A further instance of this impropriety should incur disciplinary action. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jun 21 23:54:51 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:54:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 References: <5262210.1245569554221.JavaMail.root@ps24> Message-ID: <2050D1427FEF46B3873A6E1C47C7064E@MARVLAPTOP> > +=+ I have only a passing acquaintance with ACBL regulations, but > the > principle here surely is to issue at least a strong admonishment > or its > equivalent, for the record. A further instance of this impropriety > should > incur disciplinary action. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It wasn't clear until reading everything thoroughly that West asked about the club opening after he passed, not before. If he wanted to avoid an "admonishment" he should have asked about the 1C bid before passing, which is permitted by L20F3. Then it is only when East leads a club that an infraction occurs, and East gets the admonishment whileWest is guiltless. But that should not be permitted by the Laws. A player in the passout position, with no intention of acting, should be required to postpone any question until after the opening lead is made. Or at least any query should be restricted to an "explanation of the auction." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 22 00:08:20 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:08:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] My comments on the Houston NABC+ cases In-Reply-To: <4A3CA52F.8060607@aol.com> References: <694eadd40906190848v23a0d65q15113ade53746084@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40906192022i1fd0b93eqc351c821c3f9406a@mail.gmail.com> <4A3CA52F.8060607@aol.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40906211508w7928f658xd08e7b0160e4410c@mail.gmail.com> I always try to remember to announce it here and on rec.games.bridge. I'll forward your note to Gary Blaiss, but I doubt he'll change his procedure. AW On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola Adam! Thanks for the material. There is a note saying that the > expert commentary will be available in about a month. Could you, or > Marv or anyone else announce this on blml? And, a suggestion: I have > downloaded (and printed) the material. It is more comfortable to read > it while sitting on the sofa (or elsewhere) and not at the computer. I > don't know how many others do this but suspect that many do. > When the expert commentary is available it can only be downloaded with > the cases. (At least I can't download it without printing the cases > again but I am a computer anti-talent.) This wastes paper and time > since I can then throw away the stuff I had printed earlier. (Cases > without commentary.) Would it be possible to print the commentary > separately so that we could print it and insert it in the material > already printed and thus not have to print all of the cases twice? > Thanks again, JE > > Adam Wildavsky schrieb: > > The cases are here: > > > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Houston2009.html > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090621/f3c5f98b/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 22 00:13:23 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:13:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] My comments on the Houston NABC+ cases In-Reply-To: <694eadd40906211508w7928f658xd08e7b0160e4410c@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40906190848v23a0d65q15113ade53746084@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40906192022i1fd0b93eqc351c821c3f9406a@mail.gmail.com> <4A3CA52F.8060607@aol.com> <694eadd40906211508w7928f658xd08e7b0160e4410c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40906211513y65db57cfned23bb4c88aff373@mail.gmail.com> I always try to remember to announce it here and on rec.games.bridge. I'll forward your note to Gary Blaiss, but I doubt he'll change his procedure. AW On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > > Hola Adam! ?Thanks for the material. ?There is a note saying that the > expert commentary will be available in about a month. ?Could you, or > Marv or anyone else announce this on blml? ?And, a suggestion: I have > downloaded (and printed) the material. ?It is more comfortable to read > it while sitting on the sofa (or elsewhere) and not at the computer. ?I > don't know how many others do this but suspect that many do. > When the expert commentary is available it can only be downloaded with > the cases. ?(At least I can't download it without printing the cases > again but I am a computer anti-talent.) ?This wastes paper and time > since I can then throw away the stuff I had printed earlier. ?(Cases > without commentary.) ?Would it be possible to print the commentary > separately so that we could print it and insert it in the material > already printed and thus not have to print all of the cases twice? > Thanks again, JE > > Adam Wildavsky schrieb: > > The cases are here: > > > > ?http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Houston2009.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jun 22 01:07:06 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:07:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 In-Reply-To: <2050D1427FEF46B3873A6E1C47C7064E@MARVLAPTOP> References: <5262210.1245569554221.JavaMail.root@ps24> <2050D1427FEF46B3873A6E1C47C7064E@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <511D6135E9954335955687460BE3F96C@erdos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 > >> +=+ I have only a passing acquaintance with ACBL regulations, but >> the >> principle here surely is to issue at least a strong admonishment >> or its >> equivalent, for the record. A further instance of this impropriety >> should >> incur disciplinary action. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > It wasn't clear until reading everything thoroughly that West asked > about the club opening after he passed, not before. If he wanted to > avoid an "admonishment" he should have asked about the 1C bid before > passing, which is permitted by L20F3. Then it is only when East > leads a club that an infraction occurs, and East gets the > admonishment whileWest is guiltless. > > But that should not be permitted by the Laws. A player in the > passout position, with no intention of acting, should be required to > postpone any question until after the opening lead is made. Or at > least any query should be restricted to an "explanation of the > auction." While questions in the pass-out seat may be technically legal, players have already gotten into trouble for them, so then need to be discouraged. In Las Vegas NABC+ case 10 and non-NABC+ case 10, a player who had no need to ask a question in the pass-out seat asked about a specific bid, partner led the suit to beat the contract, and the TD and AC adjusted the score. And in Las Vegas NABC+ case 10, the wording of the AC ruling indicated that the question was improper: "The committee seriously considered assessing a procedural penalty (PP) against [East], who asked the worst kind of question at the least appropriate time." (Several commentators said that the PP should have been imposed.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 22 02:33:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:33:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <511D6135E9954335955687460BE3F96C@erdos> Message-ID: David Grabiner: >While questions in the pass-out seat may be technically legal, players >have already gotten into trouble for them, so they need to be >discouraged. In Las Vegas NABC+ case 10 and non-NABC+ case 10, a >player who had no need to ask a question in the pass-out seat asked >about a specific bid, partner led the suit to beat the contract, and >the TD and AC adjusted the score. Richard Hills: 1. Marriage is the prime cause of divorce. 2. Divorce means you have "gotten into trouble". 3. Therefore, marriage "needs to be discouraged". :-) :-) David Grabiner: >And in Las Vegas NABC+ case 10, the wording of the AC ruling indicated >that the question was improper: "The committee seriously considered >assessing a procedural penalty (PP) against [East], who asked the >worst kind of question at the least appropriate time." (Several >commentators said that the PP should have been imposed.) Richard Hills: What is improper is David or an AC or several commentators daring to suggest that a procedural penalty should be applied to a question which is fully legal under Law 20F3. (Yes, I realise that the question in this particular Houston non-NABC case 2 was illegal, because it was asked at the wrong time.) Asking a superfluous Law 20F3 question is not illegal (unless it is an infraction of Law 20G1, or unless it is an intentional communication contrary to Law 73B), merely rather poor strategy, since it restricts partner's choice amongst logical alternatives. No infraction, no PP. On the other hand, the _partner_ choosing an opening lead of the demonstrably suggested suit is an infraction of Laws 16 and 73C, so it may be appropriate to "discourage" the _partner_ with a PP. WBF Code of Practice (not yet adopted by ACBL), page 7: It is important to keep in mind which member of the partnership has the unauthorized information and to consider only that player's actions when following the path to a judgement. A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws. If it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that a player has intended to act in a way that will give unauthorized information to his partner, the Director in charge should be consulted as to the provisions of Law 73B1. If it is proven that such action has been prearranged with partner the committee consults the Director in charge concerning Law 73B2. Richard Hills: While a procedural penalty is always inappropriate for a notionally legal Law 20F3 question, a disciplinary penalty may be appropriate if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Law 20F3 sheep's clothing covers a Law 73B wolf. 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 Jun 22 08:20:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:20:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael (December 2001): >Someone just told me Flemish education levels were the highest in >Europe. David Burn (December 2001): How can that be? There are no mountains in Belgium. Swiss education levels are almost certainly the highest in Europe. On the subject of carelessness versus irrationality, I have just been reading Larry Cohen's account of the final of the US trial to select a team for Bal... er, Paris. He did not (and you would not) believe some of the plays that were made in the course of a match among players of the very highest class. Yet none of the people who failed to cash the setting trick, or let doubled sacrifices through by producing penalty cards, or went off in laydown games, would say of their actions afterwards "I must have been mad". Rather, they (and their team-mates) would refer to their actions as unpardonably careless. The difficulty is that a play occasioned by an act of carelessness often takes on an aspect of irrationality for those who do not know the mental process that caused it. Suppose you saw Bob Hamman, requiring three tricks from this spade combination (no entry to North): AQ3 K2 lead the two from his hand. Would you think he had gone mad? And yet, if you knew that he had mistaken the four of clubs for the four of spades in his hand, his action would not be in the least "irrational", merely caused by the carelessness that had prompted his original misconception. [snip] 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 Mon Jun 22 09:23:00 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:23:00 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: > Richard Hills: > On the other hand, the _partner_ choosing an opening lead of the > demonstrably suggested suit is an infraction of Laws 16 and 73C, > so it > may be appropriate to "discourage" the _partner_ with a PP. It is only in the last few decades that PPs have been used to "discourage" unethical behavior, despite the fact that they were not so used going all the way back to the 30s. Who started this? Procedural penalties are meant for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. (L90A) So how about some examples? Eight are provided by L90B "(but the offenses are not limited to these):" Whenever a general statement like that accompanies a list of examples, there is a generally-accepted legal principle called *ejusdem generis* that says you can't add an item that is of a different nature than the examples. None of the examples in L90B have anything to do with deliberate ethical violations, and rightly so. Disciplinary action for such offenses should be handled outside the game, not within it. We have L91 for behavior that is so bad it must be dealt with immediately. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 22 11:35:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:35:01 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <25832477.1245663301961.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com >Date: 22/06/2009 8:23 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > <<< > >Procedural penalties are meant for any offense that unduly delays or >obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates >correct procedure or requires the award of an adjusted score at >another table. (L90A) < >there is a generally-accepted legal principle called >*ejusdem generis* that says you can't add an item that is of a >different nature than the examples. None of the examples in L90B >have anything to do with deliberate ethical violations, and rightly >so. Disciplinary action for such offenses should be handled outside >the game, not within it. We have L91 for behavior that is so bad it >must be dealt with immediately. > +=+ That is a personal opinion. The fact is that the action is a violation of correct procedure - see Law 73B1 and 16B1, and I would say also possibly 72B1. WBF Committees support the power of the Director to award a PP in his discretion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 22 12:32:43 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:32:43 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 Message-ID: <9424369.1245666763061.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu >Date: 22/06/2009 0:07 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Marvin L French" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 5:54 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 > (Someone wrote:) > Then it is only when East leads a club that an infraction occurs, >> and East gets the admonishment while West is guiltless. >> >> But that should not be permitted by the Laws. A player in the >> passout position, with no intention of acting, should be required to >> postpone any question until after the opening lead is made. Or at >> least any query should be restricted to an "explanation of the >> auction." > +=+ After the final pass of the auction partner of the player who is to make the opening lead may not ask a question until his turn to play. To do so is a violation of Law 20F2. This also precludes his asking a supplementary question when the player on lead has asked a question. Before the final pass Law 20 F! applies. In this there is a reference to Law 16. Law 16A3 should be noted. Successive drafting committees have shied away from a law requiring a player in the pass out position to have a demonstrable reason for asking a question. It is not the case that such a suggestion has never been considered. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 22 17:39:40 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:39:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 In-Reply-To: <9424369.1245666763061.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <9424369.1245666763061.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:32:43 -0400, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > >> ----Original Message---- >> From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu >> Date: 22/06/2009 0:07 >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Marvin L French" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 5:54 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 >> > (Someone wrote:) >> Then it is only when East leads a club that an infraction occurs, >>> and East gets the admonishment while West is guiltless. >>> >>> But that should not be permitted by the Laws. A player in the >>> passout position, with no intention of acting, should be required to >>> postpone any question until after the opening lead is made. Or at >>> least any query should be restricted to an "explanation of the >>> auction." >> > +=+ After the final pass of the auction partner of the player who is > to make the opening lead may not ask a question until his turn to > play. To do so is a violation of Law 20F2. This also precludes his > asking a supplementary question when the player on lead has > asked a question. > Before the final pass Law 20 F! applies. In this there is a > reference to Law 16. Law 16A3 should be noted. > Successive drafting committees have shied away from a > law requiring a player in the pass out position to have a > demonstrable reason for asking a question. It is not the case > that such a suggestion has never been considered. > ~ > Grattan ~ > +=+ I recently read L41B and came to the opposite conclusion. I read it as meaning that *during the clarification period*, the leader's partner can ask for an explanation of the auction. Of course, it really says "Before the opening lead is faced" the leader's partner can ask for an explanation. But when I read it, I saw those as meaning the same thing. It puzzled me at the time, because it didn't seem right. But there is was in laws. At best it is still ambiguous. If I read L41A and L41B as a time-line for correct procedure, then I get the meaning you are suggesting. But L41A isn't timeline. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 22 17:57:17 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:57:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 In-Reply-To: References: <9424369.1245666763061.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <002501c9f352$1eb499f0$5c1dcdd0$@no> I understand the laws that during the clarification period the leader first asks his questions, then he selects his opening lead and places it face down on the table, and only thereafter may his partner ask his questions. If, as a consequence of questions asked by the opening leader's partner, misinformation during the auction by the declaring side is revealed then (and only then) may the opening lead (still face down) be retracted and replaced by another lead. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: 22. juni 2009 17:40 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 > > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:32:43 -0400, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk > wrote: > > > > > > >> ----Original Message---- > >> From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu > >> Date: 22/06/2009 0:07 > >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >> Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Marvin L French" > >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 5:54 PM > >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 > >> > > (Someone wrote:) > >> Then it is only when East leads a club that an infraction occurs, > >>> and East gets the admonishment while West is guiltless. > >>> > >>> But that should not be permitted by the Laws. A player in the > >>> passout position, with no intention of acting, should be required to > >>> postpone any question until after the opening lead is made. Or at > >>> least any query should be restricted to an "explanation of the > >>> auction." > >> > > +=+ After the final pass of the auction partner of the player who is > > to make the opening lead may not ask a question until his turn to > > play. To do so is a violation of Law 20F2. This also precludes his > > asking a supplementary question when the player on lead has > > asked a question. > > Before the final pass Law 20 F! applies. In this there is a > > reference to Law 16. Law 16A3 should be noted. > > Successive drafting committees have shied away from a > > law requiring a player in the pass out position to have a > > demonstrable reason for asking a question. It is not the case > > that such a suggestion has never been considered. > > ~ > > Grattan ~ > > +=+ > > I recently read L41B and came to the opposite conclusion. I read it as > meaning that *during the clarification period*, the leader's partner can > ask for an explanation of the auction. Of course, it really says "Before > the opening lead is faced" the leader's partner can ask for an > explanation. But when I read it, I saw those as meaning the same thing. It > puzzled me at the time, because it didn't seem right. But there is was in > laws. > > At best it is still ambiguous. If I read L41A and L41B as a time-line for > correct procedure, then I get the meaning you are suggesting. But L41A > isn't timeline. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 22 18:13:28 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:13:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 In-Reply-To: <002501c9f352$1eb499f0$5c1dcdd0$@no> References: <9424369.1245666763061.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> <002501c9f352$1eb499f0$5c1dcdd0$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:57:17 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > I understand the laws that during the clarification period the leader > first > asks his questions, then he selects his opening lead and places it face > down > on the table, and only thereafter may his partner ask his questions. > > If, as a consequence of questions asked by the opening leader's partner, > misinformation during the auction by the declaring side is revealed then > (and only then) may the opening lead (still face down) be retracted and > replaced by another lead. And the last bid by the NOS might be allowed to be changed (L21B1(a)) > > Regards Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of >> Robert Frick >> Sent: 22. juni 2009 17:40 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 >> >> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:32:43 -0400, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >> ----Original Message---- >> >> From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu >> >> Date: 22/06/2009 0:07 >> >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> >> Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Marvin L French" >> >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> >> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 5:54 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 >> >> >> > (Someone wrote:) >> >> Then it is only when East leads a club that an infraction occurs, >> >>> and East gets the admonishment while West is guiltless. >> >>> >> >>> But that should not be permitted by the Laws. A player in the >> >>> passout position, with no intention of acting, should be required to >> >>> postpone any question until after the opening lead is made. Or at >> >>> least any query should be restricted to an "explanation of the >> >>> auction." >> >> >> > +=+ After the final pass of the auction partner of the player who is >> > to make the opening lead may not ask a question until his turn to >> > play. To do so is a violation of Law 20F2. This also precludes his >> > asking a supplementary question when the player on lead has >> > asked a question. >> > Before the final pass Law 20 F! applies. In this there is a >> > reference to Law 16. Law 16A3 should be noted. >> > Successive drafting committees have shied away from a >> > law requiring a player in the pass out position to have a >> > demonstrable reason for asking a question. It is not the case >> > that such a suggestion has never been considered. >> > ~ >> > Grattan ~ >> > +=+ >> >> I recently read L41B and came to the opposite conclusion. I read it as >> meaning that *during the clarification period*, the leader's partner can >> ask for an explanation of the auction. Of course, it really says "Before >> the opening lead is faced" the leader's partner can ask for an >> explanation. But when I read it, I saw those as meaning the same thing. >> It >> puzzled me at the time, because it didn't seem right. But there is was >> in >> laws. >> >> At best it is still ambiguous. If I read L41A and L41B as a time-line >> for >> correct procedure, then I get the meaning you are suggesting. But L41A >> isn't timeline. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 22 18:58:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:58:26 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 Message-ID: <17325392.1245689906144.JavaMail.root@ps28> >----Original Message---- >From: svenpran at online.no >Date: 22/06/2009 16:57 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 > >I understand the laws that during the clarification period the leader first >asks his questions, then he selects his opening lead and places it face down >on the table, and only thereafter may his partner ask his questions. > >If, as a consequence of questions asked by the opening leader's partner, >misinformation during the auction by the declaring side is revealed then >(and only then) may the opening lead (still face down) be retracted and >replaced by another lead. > >Regards Sven > +=+ It was an oversight on my part not to deal with the Correction Period. My understanding of the law is in line with what Sven says above. It is something that could be clarified, needing the words "after the opening lead is placed face down", whih could be added perhaps as a footnote. If opening leads are not made face down thre is a complication; it looks as though leader's partner is stymied until his turn to play. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From adam at irvine.com Mon Jun 22 19:06:06 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:06:06 -0700 Subject: [BLML] My comments on the Houston Non-NABC+ cases In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:23:54 EDT." <694eadd40906192023h48448390ta436dcb6c453f109@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200906221706.KAA18185@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > 4. I see no merit to the appeal. Whether we should be in the business > of regulating opening bid strength is a separate matter. I'm disturbed by this one, because it looks to me like the ACBL (TD/AC) wasn't interpreting and applying their own laws correctly. The appeal may still have been without merit because N-S appealed on different grounds which may well have been meritless (I didn't really study that issue.) The problem was that N-S had an agreement that an opening 1 bid could be a very light hand that other pairs would open a weak 2, but still promised 8+ HCP. North, the dealer, opened 1H on JT954 AT963 92 Q. Ultimately, the TD ruled that the opening bid was illegal and adjusted. The casebook said this about the ruling: "Although N/S's agreement is legal, Laws 40B1(a) and 40B2(a) establish an absolute minimum of 8 HCP for natural opening one-level bids." Of course, the Laws say no such thing, by themselves. Those Laws just give the Regulating Authority the power to designate certain agreements as "special" and disallow them. Later on, it says about the committee decision, "Per ACBL Board Election 3, the opening bid with fewer than 8 HCP is disallowed." But I don't see anything in Election 3 that supports that. This election says, "Law 40B1 and Law 40B2(a): An opening bid of 1NT and an opening bid of one in a suit, which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 high-card points, is designated a special partnership agreement. These two special partnership agreements are disallowed for in all ACBL sanctioned events." This election says *by* *partnership* *agreement*. That wasn't the case here. The N/S agreement was that opening 1 bids showed 8 HCP. North violated this agreement, for whatever reason---either as a psych with a lead-directing feature, or as a judgment that his hand was worth 8 HCP presumably because of the intermediates (very poor judgment IMHO because of the stiff queen, but MHO or anyone else's HO is not relevant to the ruling). But although I think the new Laws *may* make it possible for RA's to outlaw specific opening bids even when they violate partnership agreements---maybe they don't, I'm not sure---but even if they do make it possible, Election 3 doesn't do this, since it only outlaws bids that show less than 8 HCP *by* *partnership* *agreement*. There was no evidence of a CPU here; if South had underbid based on secret knowledge that North's bid could be lighter than announced, that would be evidence, but in fact the problem arose because South bid way up, getting to a making 4S game that the TD/AC ruled wouldn't have been reached without the opening bid. (It looks to me that game was beatable but perhaps only on an inspired opening low heart lead.) Also, there's no evidence that MI played a part. If there are any CoC's that specifically make it illegal to violate one's agreements in this manner, I haven't seen them---are they present? But unless there are some relevant CoC's that I didn't know about, it looks to me that either the TD and possibly the AC misinterpreted and misapplied the relevant regulations, or else the regulations as they're written don't convey the "real" rule. One way or another, something needs to be fixed. (I say "possibly the AC" because N/S's appeal was that they would have reached 4S even without the opening bid, and they didn't question the ruling that the opening was illegal, so the AC may not have considered this aspect too seriously either. By the way, N/S also violated the rules by failing to pre-alert the light openings and not marking their CC correctly, although I don't think this MI was a factor in the table result.) -- Adam Beneschan From adam at irvine.com Mon Jun 22 19:09:32 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:09:32 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Houston Non-NABC+ case 4 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:06:06 PDT." <200906221706.KAA18185@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200906221709.KAA18265@mailhub.irvine.com> Sorry, I forgot to change the subject line to start a new thread when making my previous post... here it is again, in case this helps... Adam Wildavsky wrote: > 4. I see no merit to the appeal. Whether we should be in the business > of regulating opening bid strength is a separate matter. I'm disturbed by this one, because it looks to me like the ACBL (TD/AC) wasn't interpreting and applying their own laws correctly. The appeal may still have been without merit because N-S appealed on different grounds which may well have been meritless (I didn't really study that issue.) The problem was that N-S had an agreement that an opening 1 bid could be a very light hand that other pairs would open a weak 2, but still promised 8+ HCP. North, the dealer, opened 1H on JT954 AT963 92 Q. Ultimately, the TD ruled that the opening bid was illegal and adjusted. The casebook said this about the ruling: "Although N/S's agreement is legal, Laws 40B1(a) and 40B2(a) establish an absolute minimum of 8 HCP for natural opening one-level bids." Of course, the Laws say no such thing, by themselves. Those Laws just give the Regulating Authority the power to designate certain agreements as "special" and disallow them. Later on, it says about the committee decision, "Per ACBL Board Election 3, the opening bid with fewer than 8 HCP is disallowed." But I don't see anything in Election 3 that supports that. This election says, "Law 40B1 and Law 40B2(a): An opening bid of 1NT and an opening bid of one in a suit, which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 high-card points, is designated a special partnership agreement. These two special partnership agreements are disallowed for in all ACBL sanctioned events." This election says *by* *partnership* *agreement*. That wasn't the case here. The N/S agreement was that opening 1 bids showed 8 HCP. North violated this agreement, for whatever reason---either as a psych with a lead-directing feature, or as a judgment that his hand was worth 8 HCP presumably because of the intermediates (very poor judgment IMHO because of the stiff queen, but MHO or anyone else's HO is not relevant to the ruling). But although I think the new Laws *may* make it possible for RA's to outlaw specific opening bids even when they violate partnership agreements---maybe they don't, I'm not sure---but even if they do make it possible, Election 3 doesn't do this, since it only outlaws bids that show less than 8 HCP *by* *partnership* *agreement*. There was no evidence of a CPU here; if South had underbid based on secret knowledge that North's bid could be lighter than announced, that would be evidence, but in fact the problem arose because South bid way up, getting to a making 4S game that the TD/AC ruled wouldn't have been reached without the opening bid. (It looks to me that game was beatable but perhaps only on an inspired opening low heart lead.) Also, there's no evidence that MI played a part. If there are any CoC's that specifically make it illegal to violate one's agreements in this manner, I haven't seen them---are they present? But unless there are some relevant CoC's that I didn't know about, it looks to me that either the TD and possibly the AC misinterpreted and misapplied the relevant regulations, or else the regulations as they're written don't convey the "real" rule. One way or another, something needs to be fixed. (I say "possibly the AC" because N/S's appeal was that they would have reached 4S even without the opening bid, and they didn't question the ruling that the opening was illegal, so the AC may not have considered this aspect too seriously either. By the way, N/S also violated the rules by failing to pre-alert the light openings and not marking their CC correctly, although I don't think this MI was a factor in the table result.) -- Adam Beneschan From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jun 22 19:28:47 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:28:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Houston NABC+ 11 Message-ID: <4A3FBF4F.8090303@aol.com> This case bothers me. Jill Myers (who,I believe, is a world class player and very experienced) asked, if the opponents played upside down signals after RHO had played to the first trick. Later she said that she always asks for carding when she is declarer even if she had asked on a previous hand. We (TDs) have learned to never cast aspersions as to the ethics of actions of players and we avoid doing so. Had I been the TD in this case I'd have had trouble restraining myself. Following points: 1. A player of her ability and experience asks every time she is declarer? Has she a reading disability so that she can't check the convention/system card? 2. Has she a memory disability so that she can't remember from one hand to the next how the opponents signal? But, even if we believe her: 1. She probably played 100-200 hands in Houston. (And many thousand at other such events.) Did anyone check to see if she really asks every time? 2. If she really does ask, then she ought to know by now when to ask and how to formulate the question. So why did she ask at the wrong (at least inopportune and suspicious) time and not formulate the question properly? My gut reaction could be summarised in the title of a Doonesbury comic: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! JE From adam at irvine.com Mon Jun 22 20:36:59 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:36:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Houston NABC+ case 12 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:22:15 EDT." <694eadd40906192022i1fd0b93eqc351c821c3f9406a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200906221836.LAA19053@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > 12. I like the rulings. I see no merit in the appeal. The only thing I don't like about this is that I think the final adjusted score was too generous to the offenders. Looking at the diagram, without too much analysis---it looks like the director ruled that the defenders would get the red aces and the K and 10 of trumps against 4S, but it sure looks to me that there should have been a way to manufacture an extra trick or two---possibly a low trump, or one of the red queens, or even the diamond 9? I think the result should have been at least -200 or -300 even if we don't think the final 4S contract would have been whacked. (The writeup says that they think 4S would have been likely to go down one rather than two after the lead of the HQ. Suppose that were the lead, and South ducks; then next time the defense gets in they continue with HA and a third round... ?) -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 22 22:20:19 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:20:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 In-Reply-To: References: <9424369.1245666763061.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <35386683-D3CE-43C7-B4F7-4525C894E46E@starpower.net> On Jun 22, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:32:43 -0400, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk > wrote: > >>> From: "Marvin L French" >>> >>>> But that should not be permitted by the Laws. A player in the >>>> passout position, with no intention of acting, should be >>>> required to >>>> postpone any question until after the opening lead is made. Or at >>>> least any query should be restricted to an "explanation of the >>>> auction." >> >> +=+ After the final pass of the auction partner of the player who is >> to make the opening lead may not ask a question until his turn to >> play. To do so is a violation of Law 20F2. This also precludes his >> asking a supplementary question when the player on lead has >> asked a question. >> Before the final pass Law 20 F! applies. In this there is a >> reference to Law 16. Law 16A3 should be noted. >> Successive drafting committees have shied away from a >> law requiring a player in the pass out position to have a >> demonstrable reason for asking a question. It is not the case >> that such a suggestion has never been considered. > > I recently read L41B and came to the opposite conclusion. I read it as > meaning that *during the clarification period*, the leader's > partner can > ask for an explanation of the auction. Of course, it really says > "Before > the opening lead is faced" the leader's partner can ask for an > explanation. But when I read it, I saw those as meaning the same > thing. It > puzzled me at the time, because it didn't seem right. But there is > was in > laws. > > At best it is still ambiguous. If I read L41A and L41B as a time- > line for > correct procedure, then I get the meaning you are suggesting. But L41A > isn't timeline. L41 is of course a "timeline", else it makes no sense: A. "...defender... makes the opening lead face down"; B. "Before the opening lead is faced..."; C. "Following this... the opening lead is faced; D. "After the opening lead is faced..." So Bob's initial reading appears to be correct, and Grattan's wrong. L20F2 gives the defender certain rights "after the final pass and throughout the play period" but does not limit them, in direct contrast to L20F1, which does so explicitly ("but only at his own turn to call") but applies only "before the final pass". The defender behind dummy may makes his inquiries either while his partner's lead is face down on the table ("this clarification period" [L41C]) or after the lead has been faced and a card played from dummy ("at his own turn" [L20F2]), giving him the choice of eliciting replies from declarer either before or after he has seen the dummy. None of this is any problem; it is as it should be. The problem Marv points out is that if the defender happens to be about to make the final pass of the auction, L20F1 provides a loophole around the L41 timeline; to make his inquiries *before* his partner leads face down he need only do so before actually passing, thus "before the final pass... at his own turn to call". Actively ethical players are careful to avoid taking advantage, knowing that they will be able to inquire during the clarification period and that no disadvantage will accrue to waiting (as might be the case if they were required to hold off until dummy was down and it was their turn to play to trick one). Marv is right to wish to plug this loophole. But doing so is problematic; you can't presume that a defender who chooses to pass after asking a question was always going to pass regardless of the answer. Marv writes that "a player in the passout position, *with no intention of acting* [emphasis mine], should be required to postpone any question..." That works only if we have some sensible criterion for finding "no intention of acting"; I have none such to suggest. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 22 23:09:12 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:09:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 In-Reply-To: <35386683-D3CE-43C7-B4F7-4525C894E46E@starpower.net> References: <9424369.1245666763061.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> <35386683-D3CE-43C7-B4F7-4525C894E46E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c9f37d$b176bc20$14643460$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............. > The problem Marv points out is that if the defender happens to be > about to make the final pass of the auction, L20F1 provides a > loophole around the L41 timeline; to make his inquiries *before* his > partner leads face down he need only do so before actually passing, > thus "before the final pass... at his own turn to call". Actively > ethical players are careful to avoid taking advantage, knowing that > they will be able to inquire during the clarification period and that > no disadvantage will accrue to waiting (as might be the case if they > were required to hold off until dummy was down and it was their turn > to play to trick one). Marv is right to wish to plug this loophole. > But doing so is problematic; you can't presume that a defender who > chooses to pass after asking a question was always going to pass > regardless of the answer. Marv writes that "a player in the passout > position, *with no intention of acting* [emphasis mine], should be > required to postpone any question..." That works only if we have > some sensible criterion for finding "no intention of acting"; I have > none such to suggest. There is absolutely no need to "plug this loophole". Any grown up Director will be fully aware of: Laws 16B1(a) (: ...... as for example by ..... a question,.....) and 20F1: (..... Law 16 may apply.....) and will most certainly apply Law 16B1 if he finds any indication that a player has violated the restriction Marv apparently desires in the laws. I agree with you that including such a restriction in the laws will probably be next to impossible. Regards Sven From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jun 22 23:31:09 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:31:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [Bulk] Houston NABC+ 11 In-Reply-To: <4A3FBF4F.8090303@aol.com> References: <4A3FBF4F.8090303@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A3FF81D.1000604@yahoo.co.uk> [Jeff Easterson] This case bothers me. Jill Myers (who,I believe, is a world class player and very experienced) asked, if the opponents played upside down signals after RHO had played to the first trick. Later she said that she always asks for carding when she is declarer even if she had asked on a previous hand. We (TDs) have learned to never cast aspersions as to the ethics of actions of players and we avoid doing so. Had I been the TD in this case I'd have had trouble restraining myself. Following points: 1. A player of her ability and experience asks every time she is declarer? Has she a reading disability so that she can't check the convention/system card? 2. Has she a memory disability so that she can't remember from one hand to the next how the opponents signal? But, even if we believe her: 1. She probably played 100-200 hands in Houston. (And many thousand at other such events.) Did anyone check to see if she really asks every time? 2. If she really does ask, then she ought to know by now when to ask and how to formulate the question. So why did she ask at the wrong (at least inopportune and suspicious) time and not formulate the question properly? My gut reaction could be summarised in the title of a Doonesbury comic: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! [Nigel] After polling the players' peers, the director ruled that North-South weren't damaged by West's question; but he fined West 1 VP for asking an inappropriate question at a time when she might have known it would benefit her. The committee disagreed about the damage so adjusted the score in North-South's favour (4H-1) but removed the PP. I slightly prefer the committee's judgement but it's hard to get het up about this. UMO, the correct ruling could be anything from - 2 down and retain the PP ... to ... - result stands no PP. From adam at tameware.com Tue Jun 23 00:10:37 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:10:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston Non-NABC+ case 4 In-Reply-To: <200906221709.KAA18265@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200906221706.KAA18185@mailhub.irvine.com> <200906221709.KAA18265@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40906221510j3cc915fdo8ae9f231d34f90a6@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > The casebook said this about the ruling: "Although N/S's agreement is > legal, Laws 40B1(a) and 40B2(a) establish an absolute minimum of 8 HCP > for natural opening one-level bids." Of course, the Laws say no such > thing, by themselves. Those Laws just give the Regulating Authority > the power to designate certain agreements as "special" and disallow > them. Later on, it says about the committee decision, "Per ACBL Board > Election 3, the opening bid with fewer than 8 HCP is disallowed." But > I don't see anything in Election 3 that supports that. This election > says, "Law 40B1 and Law 40B2(a): An opening bid of 1NT and an opening > bid of one in a suit, which by partnership agreement could show fewer > than 8 high-card points, is designated a special partnership > agreement. These two special partnership agreements are disallowed > for in all ACBL sanctioned events." > Thanks, Adam! I'm glad you took the trouble to look up the regulations the TDs cited. I missed the boat on this one. I now agree with you completely. AW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090622/344396a7/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 23 00:47:55 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:47:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <17325392.1245689906144.JavaMail.root@ps28> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>I understand the laws that during the clarification period the leader >>first asks his questions, then he selects his opening lead and places >>it face down on the table, and only thereafter may his partner ask >>his questions. >> >>If, as a consequence of questions asked by the opening leader's >>partner, misinformation during the auction by the declaring side is >>revealed then (and only then) may the opening lead (still face down) >>be retracted and replaced by another lead. Richard Hills: "Only then" is misleading, since any relevant irregularity will do (for example, the face down opening lead may have been perpetrated by Timothy the Toucan, who is about to lead out of turn, or by the Rueful Rabbit, who is declarer - see Law 54E). Grattan Endicott: >+=+ It was an oversight on my part not to deal with the Correction >Period. My understanding of the law is in line with what Sven says >above. It is something that could be clarified, needing the words >"after the opening lead is placed face down", which could be added >perhaps as a footnote. If opening leads are not made face down there >is a complication; it looks as though leader's partner is stymied >until his turn to play. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 41B, first sentence: "Before the opening lead is faced, the leader's partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent's call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3)." Richard Hills: Questioning by leader's partner is clear, no Law 41 footnote needed. Law 41A, second sentence: "The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender's hand." Richard Hills: Retraction of the opening lead is clear, no Law 41 footnote needed. Law 22B1: "The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn then see Law 54). The interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the Clarification Period." Law 21B1(a): "Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, 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 to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation." Richard Hills: Law 41 lacks any cross-references to Laws 22B1 and 21B1(a); this is where a 2018 footnote would be useful. Meanwhile, if Ton Kooijman's unofficial Commentary advances to become an official Appendix to the Lawbook, that Commentary / Appendix could be revised to include this interaction between Law 41 and Law 21. 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 Jun 23 02:04:18 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:04:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Houston Non-NABC+ case 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200906221709.KAA18265@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan asserted: [big snip] >North, the dealer, opened 1H on JT954 AT963 92 Q. [big snip] >The N/S agreement was that opening 1 bids showed 8 HCP. Richard Hills quibbles: The N/S explicit agreement was that opening 1 bids showed 8 hcp. Adam Beneschan asserted: >North violated this agreement, Richard Hills quibbles: North violated this explicit agreement. Adam Beneschan asserted: >for whatever reason---either as a psych with a lead-directing >feature, Richard Hills quibbles: By definition, a psyche is a "gross" distortion; 7 hcp instead of 8 hcp is a mild deviation. Adam Beneschan asserted: >or as a judgment that his hand was worth 8 HCP presumably >because of the intermediates (very poor judgment IMHO because of >the stiff queen, but MHO or anyone else's HO is not relevant to >the ruling). [snip] >Election 3 doesn't do this, since it only outlaws bids that show >less than 8 HCP *by* *partnership* *agreement*. There was no >evidence of a CPU here; [big snip] Richard Hills quibbles: There is evidence that North is not Walter the Walrus, since North chose to treat 7 hcp as worth 8 hcp. And a non-Walrus who has deviated by opening a point light now (with a singleton queen) has been, on the balance of probabilities, very likely to have deviated by opening a point light repeatedly in the past (albeit perhaps with more playing strength, lacking a singleton queen). New 2007 Law 85A1: "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." New 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." 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 Jun 23 02:16:21 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:16:21 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <25832477.1245663301961.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <36C40270F77B452FAC090789658085A9@MARVLAPTOP> >From Grattan: >From Marv >> >>Procedural penalties are meant for any offense that unduly delays >>or >>obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates >>correct procedure or requires the award of an adjusted score at >>another table. (L90A) > < >>there is a generally-accepted legal principle called >>*ejusdem generis* that says you can't add an item that is of a >>different nature than the examples. None of the examples in L90B >>have anything to do with deliberate ethical violations, and >>rightly >>so. Disciplinary action for such offenses should be handled >>outside >>the game, not within it. We have L91 for behavior that is so bad >>it >>must be dealt with immediately. >> > +=+ That is a personal opinion. It is not merely opinion. It is a firm belief based on 60 years experience in the game and careful research. And on common sense, if that qualifies. >The fact is that the action is a > violation of correct procedure - see Law 73B1 and 16B1, and > I would say also possibly 72B1. None of which has a cross-reference to L90 in the carefully cross-referenced Laws. The word "procedure" is unfortunately used for many things. PPs were created back in the 30s for violations of the procedures peculiar to duplicate bridge, not for ethical violations. For the full story, go to Procedural Penalties under Bridge Laws and Regulations on my web site. Dispute what is written there if you want to dispute something. >WBF Committees support the > power of the Director to award a PP in his discretion. Who cares what WBF Committees support? Or ACBL ACs? I want an official opinion from the WBFLC, but only when they have read what is on my web site. If they want to award PPs for ethical violations, then they should add an item for that in L90B. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 23 03:28:13 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:28:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Marv's webpage on Procedural Penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Marvin French webpage on Procedural Penalties: >As I said, rubber bridge is the parent game, and duplicate bridge >should retain its principles to the greatest degree possible. >..... >In the context of Law 90, "procedure" refers to those procedures >that are peculiar to duplicate bridge, not to other laws. Richard Hills quibbles: The child left home in October 2007, when the WBF snapped the link with Contract (Rubber) Bridge by changing the name of the game from Duplicate Contract Bridge to Duplicate Bridge. So the principles of duplicate bridge are now defined by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, with the Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge now being totally irrelevant to duplicate. Marvin French webpage on Procedural Penalties: >Some will point to Law 90B's "not limited to" as allowing PPs for >anything. That's a stretch. Whenever someone provides a long list >that cannot be exhaustive, they will often precede it with "not >limited to." However, "and the like" is to be understood for such >lists, and it should not be necessary to add that. >..... >Some will argue that Law 90A's "violates correct procedure" >extends to blatant UI, MI, etc. The word "procedure" is >unfortunately used elsewhere with the meaning of "a law." Richard Hills yes-and-no: I agree, as I noted in a parallel thread, that it is illegal to fine a player a PP for "blatant creation of UI" when that player has actually fully obeyed the Laws in general and Law 73D1 in particular. However, Marv's attempt to impose his own personal definition on the word "procedure" must now fail, due to a new word appearing in the 2007 edition of The Fabulous Law Book's Definitions: Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 23 03:39:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:39:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Houston NABC+ 11 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A3FBF4F.8090303@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >This case bothers me. Jill Myers (who,I believe, is a world class >player and very experienced) asked, if the opponents played upside >down signals after RHO had played to the first trick. Later she >said that she always asks for carding when she is declarer even if >she had asked on a previous hand. Richard Hills: Once face-down opening leads became the Lawbook's default, Edgar Kaplan noted that the time before the lead was faced was the ideal time for the declarer to ask questions about defensive leads and signals, since at that time declarer was not at any Law 73F risk. Jeff Easterson: >1. A player of her ability and experience asks every time she is >declarer? Has she a reading disability so that she can't check >the convention/system card? Richard Hills: In ACBL-land many players choose the default of always ask, never check the system card. Especially since the ACBL system card is single-sided, with the obverse being for scoring, so there is insufficient space to disclose exotic leads and signals (instead there is a checkbox next to these block capitals SPECIAL CARDING PLEASE ASK). Jeff Easterson: >2. Has she a memory disability so that she can't remember from >one hand to the next how the opponents signal? Richard Hills: I play at the Canberra Bridge Club against the same old faces for decades, so I find it easy to remember most of their methods. But at an ACBL NABC there are zillions of new opponents, each playing zillions of different methods, so such diversity would tend to disable anyone's memory. Jeff Easterson: >My gut reaction could be summarised in the title of a Doonesbury >comic: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! JE Richard Hills: Guilt is not a criterion for Law 73F. The criteria are: (a) damage to the non-offending side, (b) a false inference by the non-offending side, (c) no demonstrable bridge reason for the offending side's action, and (d) a benefit which could have been known at the time of the action by the offending side. 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 Jun 23 06:39:56 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:39:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Vizzini, from "The Princess Bride": "Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me." Robert Frick asked: >You hold > >AJxxx >AQ >KJ10x >Kx > >You open 1S, partner bids 2D, you bid 3D, and partner jumps to 4NT, >Blackwood. You bid 5S, incorrectly showing 2 key cards and the queen of >diamonds. Your partner bids 6D. > >At the actual table, there was a hesitation before partner's 6D bid. >Does that provide any useful UI or suggest one bid over another? Richard Hills answers: Not a Law 16 UI case, but a Law 40C3(a) aid to memory case. South has misbid in response to Keycard Blackwood, showing two keycards and the queen of diamonds. North breaks tempo because North is puzzled about the existence of two queens of diamonds. The tempo break is of memory assistance in suggesting to South that she should recheck her Keycard Blackwood response. Robert Frick, Yankee opinion: >(IMO, great job by the directors and committee on the NABC cases.) Richard Hills, non-trusting Australian opinion: A rotten job by the ACBL directors and the ACBL committee, with none bothering to Read The Fabulous Law Book to discover the most relevant Law (which Law 40C3(a), incidentally, would have demonstrated to the ACBL committee that their judgement about the appeal having merit was fallacious). 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 Jun 23 07:16:43 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:16:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, non-trusting Australian opinion: >A rotten job by the ACBL directors and the ACBL appeals committee, >with none bothering to Read The Fabulous Law Book to discover the >most relevant Law (which Law 40C3(a), incidentally, would have >demonstrated to the ACBL committee that their judgement about the >appeal having merit was fallacious). Richard Hills, non-trusting Australian clarification: A standard Law 16 ruling would involve these questions: (a) did North's hesitation before bidding 6D demonstrably suggest: (i) he underbid, demonstrably suggesting 7D? (ii) he overbid, demonstrably suggesting Pass? (b) holding one more keycard than promised, is a raise to 7D the only logical alternative for South? Both (a) and (b) are close questions, so a standard Law 16 appeal would have some merit in this case 1. The North-South appeal: "Both claimed that pass was not a logical alternative to 7D as South had realized her mistake. North added that his slow 6D bid did not suggest bidding 7D." Richard Hills, non-trusting Australian clarification: But a Law 40C3(a) ruling is straightforward; South is not entitled to be reminded that she holds one more keycard than promised. Thus bidding a grand slam is never a logical alternative if one is required to assume that one has fully described one's keycards (and hypothetical voids, not the case here), so a Law 40C3(a) appeal has zero merit in this case 1. 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 Jun 23 08:59:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:59:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Irv Kostal, January 2002: Many years ago I perpetrated a particularly successful psych, in which my partner also took unusual action. I can assure you there was no collusion involved. I was in third chair, with spade shortness, a terrible hand, and white vs red, so I opened one (psychic) spade. My partner, holding 3 spades and 7 diamonds, tried the Drury convention and I responded 2D, showing a subnormal opening bid! My partner then decided that maybe 2D was the best spot on the hand and passed! It turned out LHO had about 16 HCP with AKQJx of spades and thought he "knew" he'd get another chance to bid when he heard me bid 2D. So, I psyched 1S. Partner bid Drury (she had the values for it). I "responded" to Drury, arguably correctly, inasmuch as I had a below average 1S opening, but I suppose this is really another psych. (Did I exceed my ACBL limit on one hand?) Partner now had an inspired moment. This was back before the days of alerts, I might add, but everyone at the table knew what the bids were supposed to mean. Am I a criminal? Is my Partner? Would this be in some way illegal nowadays? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 23 10:25:48 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:25:48 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <20164614.1245745548826.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com >Date: 23/06/2009 1:16 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >Who cares what WBF Committees support? Or ACBL ACs? I want an >official opinion from the WBFLC, but only when they have read what >is on my web site. If they want to award PPs for ethical violations, >then they should add an item for that in L90B. > > +=+ Come on Marv, what makes your 'wants' so compelling? Directors will continue to apply PPs in their discretion for any departure from correct procedure. With WBF Laws Committee and Appeals Committee support they will continue to consider any departure from the prescription of the law to be a violation of correct procedure to which they may apply a PP when they are of the opinion that the circumstances justify it. This is not something that we are required to justify to you. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 23 10:39:18 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:39:18 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Houston NABC+ 11 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <21392421.1245746358826.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 23/06/2009 2:39 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston NABC+ 11 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Richard Hills: > >Guilt is not a criterion for Law 73F. The criteria are: > >(a) damage to the non-offending side, >(b) a false inference by the non-offending side, >(c) no demonstrable bridge reason for the offending side's action, > >and > >(d) a benefit which could have been known at the time of the >action by the offending side. > +=+ That is slightly short of completion. The said questions arise when there has been "a violation of the proprieties described in this law" (73) and there is resulting damage to an innocent opponent. So the first matter to determine is what violation of those proprieties has occurred. So, first question: "What violation?" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 23 10:50:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:50:34 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Marv's webpage on Procedural Penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <12140679.1245747034344.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 23/06/2009 2:28 >To: >Subj: [BLML] Marvs webpage on Procedural Penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > (Richard Hills writes:) However, Marv's attempt to impose his own personal definition on the word "procedure" must now fail, due to a new word appearing in the 2007 edition of The Fabulous Law Book's Definitions: > >Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, >but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. > +=+ Yes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 23 15:26:26 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:26:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] My comments on the Houston Non-NABC+ cases In-Reply-To: <200906221706.KAA18185@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200906221706.KAA18185@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <68981D1D-F966-4652-8AC2-C2FAB1E46707@starpower.net> On Jun 22, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >> 4. I see no merit to the appeal. Whether we should be in the business >> of regulating opening bid strength is a separate matter. > > I'm disturbed by this one, because it looks to me like the ACBL > (TD/AC) wasn't interpreting and applying their own laws correctly. > The appeal may still have been without merit because N-S appealed on > different grounds which may well have been meritless (I didn't really > study that issue.) > > The problem was that N-S had an agreement that an opening 1 bid could > be a very light hand that other pairs would open a weak 2, but still > promised 8+ HCP. North, the dealer, opened 1H on JT954 AT963 92 Q. > Ultimately, the TD ruled that the opening bid was illegal and > adjusted. > > The casebook said this about the ruling: "Although N/S's agreement is > legal, Laws 40B1(a) and 40B2(a) establish an absolute minimum of 8 HCP > for natural opening one-level bids." Of course, the Laws say no such > thing, by themselves. Those Laws just give the Regulating Authority > the power to designate certain agreements as "special" and disallow > them. Later on, it says about the committee decision, "Per ACBL Board > Election 3, the opening bid with fewer than 8 HCP is disallowed." But > I don't see anything in Election 3 that supports that. This election > says, "Law 40B1 and Law 40B2(a): An opening bid of 1NT and an opening > bid of one in a suit, which by partnership agreement could show fewer > than 8 high-card points, is designated a special partnership > agreement. These two special partnership agreements are disallowed > for in all ACBL sanctioned events." > > This election says *by* *partnership* *agreement*. That wasn't the > case here. The N/S agreement was that opening 1 bids showed 8 HCP. > North violated this agreement, for whatever reason---either as a psych > with a lead-directing feature, or as a judgment that his hand was > worth 8 HCP presumably because of the intermediates (very poor > judgment IMHO because of the stiff queen, but MHO or anyone else's HO > is not relevant to the ruling). But although I think the new Laws > *may* make it possible for RA's to outlaw specific opening bids even > when they violate partnership agreements---maybe they don't, I'm not > sure---but even if they do make it possible, Election 3 doesn't do > this, since it only outlaws bids that show less than 8 HCP *by* > *partnership* *agreement*. There was no evidence of a CPU here; if > South had underbid based on secret knowledge that North's bid could be > lighter than announced, that would be evidence, but in fact the > problem arose because South bid way up, getting to a making 4S game > that the TD/AC ruled wouldn't have been reached without the opening > bid. (It looks to me that game was beatable but perhaps only on an > inspired opening low heart lead.) Also, there's no evidence that MI > played a part. If there are any CoC's that specifically make it > illegal to violate one's agreements in this manner, I haven't seen > them---are they present? > > But unless there are some relevant CoC's that I didn't know about, it > looks to me that either the TD and possibly the AC misinterpreted and > misapplied the relevant regulations, or else the regulations as > they're written don't convey the "real" rule. One way or another, > something needs to be fixed. > > (I say "possibly the AC" because N/S's appeal was that they would have > reached 4S even without the opening bid, and they didn't question the > ruling that the opening was illegal, so the AC may not have considered > this aspect too seriously either. By the way, N/S also violated the > rules by failing to pre-alert the light openings and not marking their > CC correctly, although I don't think this MI was a factor in the table > result.) For decades, the ACBL has failed to understand -- or deliberately obscured -- the distinction between legal regulation of partnership understandings and illegal regulation of actual bids. This is exemplified by this TD and AC ruling "that the opening bid was illegal", a formulation properly applied only to opening bids that violate L17B or L18. The authors of the 2008 laws gave into the ACBL as much as could be justified by writing the new L40B, which gives absolute carte blanche to regulate partnership agreements in any manner they choose. But, in a fit of sense, they failed to fully satisfy TPTB at the ACBL by neglecting to repeal L40A3 or L40C. Thus a regulation that permits a partnership understanding to be employed only if it is never violated remains illegal, although this has not stopped the ACBL from promulgating such regulations in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future. Adam B. correctly points out that if one reads the ACBL's elections and regulations pursuant to the 2008 laws, they do not actually promulgate this doctrine, which would require wording that blatantly violated L80B2(f), and that therefore the ruling in this case was patently illegal. But nothing has been done to change the practices of ACBL TDs and ACs, who have been making illegal rulings like this one for decades. The truth is, as Adam writes, that "the regulations as they're written don't convey the 'real' rule". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 23 17:34:41 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:34:41 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Houston Non-NABC+ case 4 (was: My comments on the Houston Non-NABC+ cases) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:26:26 EDT." <68981D1D-F966-4652-8AC2-C2FAB1E46707@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200906231534.IAA27734@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric Landau wrote: > The authors of the 2008 laws gave into the ACBL as much as could be > justified by writing the new L40B, which gives absolute carte blanche > to regulate partnership agreements in any manner they choose. But, > in a fit of sense, they failed to fully satisfy TPTB at the ACBL by > neglecting to repeal L40A3 or L40C. Thus a regulation that permits a > partnership understanding to be employed only if it is never violated > remains illegal I suppose that 40B2(a), which says "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to ... allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding" could be interpreted to give the ACBL the power to write a regulation like that. I'm guessing that at some point, the WBFLC will have to issue an interpretation on this, one way or another, unless they already have. Anyway, it's not really relevant to this case since the ACBL doesn't actually have such a regulation, at least not a written one. > Adam B. correctly points out that if one reads the ACBL's elections > and regulations pursuant to the 2008 laws, they do not actually > promulgate this doctrine, which would require wording that blatantly > violated L80B2(f) Frankly, I'd prefer that they did. If they published a rule that said "thou shalt not open a hand less than 8 HCP, whether by agreement or not" that applied equally to everyone, and then said to the WBF "Yes, it's an illegal regulation that goes beyond the power you granted us, whaddaya gonna do about it?"---as bad as that sounds, it would still be far preferable to having an unwritten regulation so that nobody knows what they're allowed or not allowed to do. Especially if the unwritten rule may or may not be enforced depending on a particular director's or committee member's interpretation, policy preferences, breakfast choices, matrimonial spats the previous night, etc. -- Adam From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jun 23 22:34:17 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:34:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:16:43 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills, non-trusting Australian opinion: > >> A rotten job by the ACBL directors and the ACBL appeals committee, >> with none bothering to Read The Fabulous Law Book to discover the >> most relevant Law (which Law 40C3(a), incidentally, would have >> demonstrated to the ACBL committee that their judgement about the >> appeal having merit was fallacious). > > Richard Hills, non-trusting Australian clarification: > > A standard Law 16 ruling would involve these questions: > > (a) did North's hesitation before bidding 6D demonstrably suggest: > (i) he underbid, demonstrably suggesting 7D? > (ii) he overbid, demonstrably suggesting Pass? > > (b) holding one more keycard than promised, is a raise to 7D the > only logical alternative for South? > > Both (a) and (b) are close questions, so a standard Law 16 appeal > would have some merit in this case 1. > > The North-South appeal: > > "Both claimed that pass was not a logical alternative to 7D as > South had realized her mistake. North added that his slow 6D bid > did not suggest bidding 7D." > > Richard Hills, non-trusting Australian clarification: > > But a Law 40C3(a) ruling is straightforward; South is not entitled > to be reminded that she holds one more keycard than promised. Thus > bidding a grand slam is never a logical alternative if one is > required to assume that one has fully described one's keycards (and > hypothetical voids, not the case here), so a Law 40C3(a) appeal has > zero merit in this case 1. L40C3 cannot be given a straightforward literal interpretation, because that would ban the use of mnenomics, which aid memory. I don't think this is the intention of the law. Instead, the law was designed to rule out "external" aids to memory, calculation, and technique. Not things people do in their brain. If extra time was considered an illegal aid to memory, calculation, and tecnique, then no one could legally spend extra time thinking about a call or play. I think quiet also has be legal. If the player had no valid bridge reason for hesitating, that might be different. But the AC ruled on the basis of L16, which I think we both agree is not valid. The hesitation wasn't useful information; if anything, it probably suggested passing. As far as I can see, the player had a valid bridge reason for hesitating, and if that extra time was critical for partner remembering (contrary to the unverfiable self-report) then that was just their good luck. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 24 00:04:15 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:04:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 Message-ID: <4A41515F.5010902@yahoo.co.uk> Slovakia v France Teams. North-South vul. Dealer East. North: S:854 H:Q32 D:73 C:JT853 ---- -- (_P) 1C (1S) _P (3D) 3H (4S) _P (_P) _X.. (_P) ?? 3D = "better raise than 3S, not invitational" East called the Director when the tray came back with the Double over 4S, complaining about a break in tempo. East said the tray had taken 60 seconds to return, North put the time at 30. The Director went to the other side of the screen, and it was clear West had bid directly. West said South had taken 45 seconds in selecting his Double, South had said he had bid directly. The director ruled that there had been a break in tempo. He asked a number of players, most of whom would have bid 5C straight over 4S. When asked to pass at that turn, some would also pass over the Double. The Director also established, from the players, what the hesitation showed: a good hand, but only in Hearts and Clubs. The Director saw some problems for the play of 4S, but decided West would probably find the DQ and make 10 tricks. North-South appealed. Present: All players except West and both Captains. North confirmed his estimate that the tray had returned after 30, but he pointed out that this was for both the Double and the Pass, and that there might have been questions asked and answered. South added that the tray had been slow in general. 3D and 4S had also taken some time, and the Double not exceptionally long in relation. North told the Committee that his partner had shown 5 clubs, 4 hearts and a strong hand, 16 points or more. If he had no more than that, passing over 4S felt right to North. The double showed that South had even more than that, and since he held 3 spades himself, that more could not be in spades, rather in general strength. North saw no defensive tricks, so he believed 5} to be correct now. North/South pointed out that Mr Balicki at the other table had also removed 4SX to 5C, but the Committee pointed out to him that since the rest of the bidding was not known, that was hardly an argument. East asked the Committee to inquire why North had not said 5C over 4S. East did not understand the bidding. The Director added that South had told him, at the table, that he intended the double as penalties. How should the AC rule? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 24 01:54:48 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Houston Non-NABC+ case 4 In-Reply-To: <200906221709.KAA18265@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200906221709.KAA18265@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4A416B48.2070401@yahoo.co.uk> [Adam Beneschan quotes ACBL Election 3] "Law 40B1 and Law 40B2(a): An opening bid of 1NT and an opening bid of one in a suit, which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 high-card points, is designated a special partnership agreement. These two special partnership agreements are disallowed for in all ACBL sanctioned events." [Nigel] I sympathise with the TD/AC decision. Agreement-limiting regulations handicap a few law-abiding players but don't inhibit the majority. If an allegedly offending pair say that they have no agreement to deviate from such regulations, how can they be enforced? Usually, pairs are unaware of how regularly they deviate (especially in 3rd seat). They don't know, don't understand, and don't like these regulations. I'm aware of no mechanism for recording minor deviations, so the director rarely has a reliable history to go on. Hence, law-abiding pairs suffer but there is little to deter law-breakers. IMO system restrictions should be scrapped, except at the lowest level of competition. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 24 06:35:59 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:35:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fallacy of weak analogy http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html The only exterminator in Congress told his colleagues Wednesday that it would be a short-sighted move to ban use of chlordane and related termiticides that cause cancer in laboratory animals. Supporters of the bill, however, claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency was "dragging its feet" on a chemical that could cause 300,000 cancers in the American population in 70 years. "This bill reminds me of legislation that ought to be introduced to outlaw automobiles" on the grounds that cars kill people, said Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who owns an exterminating business. EPA banned use of the chemicals on crops in 1974, but permitted use against termites because the agency did not believe humans were exposed. Chlordane does not kill termites but rather drives them away. Source: Associated Press, June 25th, 1987 Analysis of the Example: Representative DeLay attempts to argue against a bill banning chlordane by comparing it to a bill banning automobiles, but this analogy is very weak. Here are some of the relevant differences: * Banning automobiles would be economically and socially disruptive in a way that banning a single pesticide would not. * There are many alternative pesticides available to replace a banned one, but there are few modes of transportation available which could replace cars. * Automobiles play a significant role in our society, whereas chlordane was used only to prevent termite damage to houses, which is of comparatively minor importance. Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Robert Frick, argument by weak analogy: [snip] >As far as I can see, the player had a valid bridge reason for >hesitating, and if that extra time was critical for partner >remembering (contrary to the unverifiable self-report) then that >was just their good luck. Weakly analogous Law 73F: "...false inference...no demonstrable bridge reason..." Richard Hills, argument by strong analogy: It is true that if an opponent draws a false inference from one's action, "a valid bridge reason" for that action is a "good luck", a Get Out Of Jail Free Card. But deceiving an opponent is only weakly analogous to aiding partner's memory. A stronger analogy to Law 40C3(a) is Strongly analogous Law 75A: "...North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits...For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values." Richard Hills, argument by strong analogy: North had "a valid bridge reason" to aid South's memory, the over- riding requirement to truthfully answer West's inquiry. Yet nevertheless Law 75A stipulates that North's memory aid is Not just South's "good luck", but rather South has a Responsibility to continue acting in accordance with South's original belief about the meaning of the auction. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jun 24 08:39:02 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:39:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 In-Reply-To: <4A41515F.5010902@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4A41515F.5010902@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: 2009/6/24 nige1 : > Slovakia v France Teams. North-South vul. Dealer East. > North: S:854 H:Q32 D:73 C:JT853 > ---- -- (_P) 1C > (1S) _P (3D) 3H > (4S) _P (_P) _X.. > (_P) ?? > 3D = "better raise than 3S, not invitational" > East called the Director when the tray came back with the Double over > 4S, complaining about a break in tempo. East said the tray had taken 60 > seconds to return, North put the time at 30. The Director went to the > other side of the screen, and it was clear West had bid directly. West > said South had taken 45 seconds in selecting his Double, South had said > he had bid directly. > The director ruled that there had been a break in tempo. He asked a > number of players, most of whom would have bid 5C straight over 4S. When > asked to pass at that turn, some would also pass over the Double. The > Director also established, from the players, what the hesitation showed: > a good hand, but only in Hearts and Clubs. The Director saw some > problems for the play of 4S, but decided West would probably find the DQ > and make 10 tricks. > North-South appealed. > Present: All players except West and both Captains. > North confirmed his estimate that the tray had returned after 30, but he > pointed out that this was for both the Double and the Pass, and that > there might have been questions asked and answered. South added that the > tray had been slow in general. 3D and 4S had also taken some time, and > the Double not exceptionally long in relation. North told the Committee > that his partner had shown 5 clubs, 4 hearts and a strong hand, 16 > points or more. If he had no more than that, passing over 4S felt right > to North. The double showed that South had even more than that, and > since he held 3 spades himself, that more could not be in spades, rather > in general strength. North saw no defensive tricks, so he believed 5} to > be correct now. North/South pointed out that Mr Balicki at the other > table had also removed 4SX to 5C, but the Committee pointed out to him > that since the rest of the bidding was not known, that was hardly an > argument. > East asked the Committee to inquire why North had not said 5C over 4S. > East did not understand the bidding. The Director added that South had > told him, at the table, that he intended the double as penalties. > > How should the AC rule? To me, pass isn't a LA. I don't think it could be at this level. Result stands. Btw, I'd have bid 5C on the previous round, but that is a close decision. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 24 08:46:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:46:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn, February 2002: >I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a >3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other >half was not. > >In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean >anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write >"semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about >distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. 2007 Law 16B1(b), semi-pregnant nonsense adjective: "...significant proportion..." 2007 Law 40B1(a), semi-pregnant nonsense adjective: "...significant number..." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 24 11:07:45 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:07:45 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <4472370.1245834465293.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 24/06/2009 7:46 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >David Burn, February 2002: > >>I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a >>3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other >>half was not. >> >>In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean >>anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write >>"semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about >>distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. > >2007 Law 16B1(b), semi-pregnant nonsense adjective: > >"...significant proportion..." > >2007 Law 40B1(a), semi-pregnant nonsense adjective: > >"...significant number..." > +=+ Under Law 81C2 the Director is the gynaecologist who shall determine whether the patient is or is not pregnant. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 24 13:42:40 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:42:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4472370.1245834465293.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <4472370.1245834465293.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <4A421130.2010804@ulb.ac.be> grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > >> ----Original Message---- >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Date: 24/06/2009 7:46 >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Subj: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> David Burn, February 2002: >> >> >>> I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a >>> 3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other >>> half was not. >>> >>> In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean >>> anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write >>> "semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about >>> distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. >>> AG : I have to disagree very strongly with this rejection. First, the fact that some locution, when taken word for word, is illogical, doesn't make it nonsense. Else, most colloquialisms and most figures of speech would have to be rejected. Second, "semi-balanced" isn't more strange than "semi-strong" or "semi-aesthetic". When human judgment is involved, fuzzy logic, that is, using propositions that are partially true, and assignig them a percenatge of veracity, is the right way to act. Is this the right way to react when laws are involved ? I say it is. Some have written, and I agree, that extenuating circumstances are a way to consider "partial culpability", with the sentence proportional to the "percentage of culpability". If you state that 4-3-3-3 pattern (or 3333 !) is perfectly balanced, and 13-0-0-0 perfectly unbalanced, then all others lie in between, and there are some hands that lie near the 50% mark. It wouldn't be too difficult to issue an algorithm for determining the "percenage of balancedness". After trying several formulae, I suggest this one : consider the (non-increasing) list of four numbers that form the pattern, add the third number to 1? times the fourth one, and divide by twice the first one. This makes the maximum balancedness value 15/16, or 94%, for 4333 ; the lowest 0, for any pattern with two voids ; has the useful -and difficult to obtain with simple formulae- effect of making e.g. 5422 more balanced than 5431 (60% vs.50%) ; andf in general gives relative results conform to our intuition. Best regards Alain Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 24 13:54:29 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:54:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4472370.1245834465293.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <4472370.1245834465293.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <4A4213F5.9070603@ulb.ac.be> grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > >> ----Original Message---- >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Date: 24/06/2009 7:46 >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Subj: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> David Burn, February 2002: >> >> >>> I once wrote that the most semi-balanced hand you could have was a >>> 3-3-0-7 shape, so that half your hand was balanced and the other >>> half was not. >>> >>> In truth, the word "semi-balanced" is a nonsense - it does not mean >>> anything, nor can it mean anything. It is as if one were to write >>> "semi-pregnant". If the makers of system policies want to talk about >>> distributions, then they should use numbers, not words. >>> Sorry, one more point; This is another formula, perhaps easier to use : Multiply the 3rd and 4th number, double the result, add the 2nd, multiply by 5 %. This has the strange effect of making 4-3-3-3 105% balanced, but other values seem right : 4-4-3-2 80 % 5-3-3-2 75 % 4-4-4-1 60 % 5-4-2-2 60 % 5-4-3-1 50 % 6-3-2-2 55 % 6-3-3-1 45 % --- 7-3-3-0 15 % --- 13-0-0-0 0 % From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 24 17:23:45 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:23:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [Bulk] Re: EUC2009. Appeal 14 In-Reply-To: References: <4A41515F.5010902@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4A424501.7080809@yahoo.co.uk> [Harald Skj?ran] To me, pass isn't a LA. I don't think it could be at this level. Result stands. Btw, I'd have bid 5C on the previous round, but that is a close decision. [Nigel] [A] Is that correct in Law, Harald? When establishing LAs, should the director trust his own bidding judgment rather than that of the players' peers? Or was the director's player-poll flawed? -- Should the director have continued polling until he found more players who would pass immediately over 4S? [B] The committee reversed the director's decision, arguing that the hesitant double didn't indicate one action over another. The South player seems to have thought the double was *penalty* but the committee don't appear to have established if that was the partnership understanding. Would a slow *penalty* double suggests bidding on? Recapping salient points: "The director ... asked a number of players, most of whom would have bid 5C straight over 4S. When asked to pass at that turn, some would also pass over the Double. The Director also established, from the players, what the hesitation showed: a good hand, but only in Hearts and Clubs ... North told the Committee that his partner had shown 5 clubs, 4 hearts and a strong hand, 16 points or more. If he had no more than that, passing over 4S felt right to North. The double showed that South had even more than that, and since he held 3 spades himself, that more could not be in spades, rather in general strength. North saw no defensive tricks, so he believed 5C to be correct now ... The Director added that South had told him, at the table, that he intended the double as penalties.". , From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 24 19:37:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:37:27 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] [Bulk] Re: EUC2009. Appeal 14 Message-ID: <11653747.1245865047217.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk >Date: 24/06/2009 16:23 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] [Bulk] Re: EUC2009. Appeal 14 > >[Harald Skj?ran] >To me, pass isn't a LA. I don't think it could be at this level. Result >stands. Btw, I'd have bid 5C on the previous round, but that is a close >decision. > >[Nigel] >[A] Is that correct in Law, Harald? When establishing LAs, should the >director trust his own bidding judgment rather than that of the players' >peers? Or was the director's player-poll flawed? -- Should the director >have continued polling until he found more players who would pass >immediately over 4S? > >[B] The committee reversed the director's decision, arguing that the >hesitant double didn't indicate one action over another. The South >player seems to have thought the double was *penalty* but the committee >don't appear to have established if that was the partnership >understanding. Would a slow *penalty* double suggests bidding on? > >Recapping salient points: "The director ... asked a number of players, >most of whom would have bid 5C straight over 4S. When asked to pass at >that turn, some would also pass over the Double. The Director also >established, from the players, what the hesitation showed: a good hand, >but only in Hearts and Clubs ... North told the Committee that his >partner had shown 5 clubs, 4 hearts and a strong hand, 16 points or >more. If he had no more than that, passing over 4S felt right to North. >The double showed that South had even more than that, and since he held >3 spades himself, that more could not be in spades, rather in general >strength. North saw no defensive tricks, so he believed 5C to be >correct now ... >The Director added that South had told him, at the table, that he >intended the double as penalties.". > +=+ The cursory reporting above calls for amplification. The committee agreed that there was a noticeable delay in the return of the tray The committee also agreed that pass was a logical alternative. However, since the hesitation conveyed nothing more than was conveyed to North by the auction and his inspection of his own hand, it ruled that the delay in the return of the tray did not convey extraneous information such as could suggest one logical alternative over the other. North is free to judge his action on the basis of the information lawfully available to him. (In fact North has an easy decision because he knows what South does not - viz. that NS and EW each have a two-suited fit, that 4S will pretty certainly make, and that 5C if it does not make* is unlikely to go more than one light.) And of course South's double was penalty inclined, based on the great strength and the ignorance of suit fits. That does not stop North from playing bridge. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* South could have a Spade void, for example.] . Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 24 21:34:24 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:34:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 In-Reply-To: <11653747.1245865047217.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <11653747.1245865047217.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <4A427FC0.4090804@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ The cursory reporting above calls for amplification. [Nigel] The original post quoted the Bulletin verbatim, omitting only the other players' hands and the committee verdict :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 25 01:10:51 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:10:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A427FC0.4090804@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ The cursory reporting above calls for amplification. Nigel Guthrie: >The original post quoted the Bulletin verbatim, omitting only the >other players' hands and the committee verdict :) Richard Hills: Perhaps Nigel should volunteer to become Australia's Leader of the Opposition (since our current one is in hot water for making a critique based on misleading evidence from a fake email). Grattan Endicott was not complaining about any cursory reporting in Nigel's Original post. Rather Grattan specifically quoted "above" a Later post by Nigel in which Nigel cursorily and misleadingly paraphrased the committee's reasoning. Nigel Guthrie, cursory and misleading paraphrase: >>>The committee reversed the director's decision, arguing that >>>the hesitant double didn't indicate one action over another. Grattan Endicott, amplification: >>the hesitation conveyed nothing more than was conveyed to North >>by the auction and his inspection of his own hand, Richard Hills: As was discussed in the "Positronic brain" thread many moons ago, it does not matter if UI demonstrably suggests an action whenever AI gives an identical demonstrable suggestion. The electron and the positron annihilate each other. And arguing that AI cancels out UI is Not the same as "arguing that the hesitant double didn't indicate one action over another". Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 25 01:26:05 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:26:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: SUMMARY If I pause to think about a call or play, and instead of sitting there like a bump on a log my partner uses this time to come to some awareness, there is no infraction and the opps get no protection. Am I missing something? In this case, South supposedly misbid her hand, thinking that she was showing three controls. While her partner thought about his/her bid, South woke up to her error. For this, the AC took away her grand slam. The AC: "As it is unclear when she realized her mistake, the slow 6D bid may have woke her up." WAKING HER UP There is an issue of whether she was woken up by the extra time she was given by partner's hesitation, or whether partner's hesitation actually suggested that she misbid her hand. As suggested above, if it was just extra time, it was perfectly legal. It never crossed my mind that L16B1 could be used for when partner's hesitation suggests information about the opponent's bidding or my own bidding. My partner hesitates over the opponents 2D opening. That makes me wonder if it is not a weak two diamonds, so I ask the opponents. It turns out it was not, and it was properly alerted but I wasn't paying attention. Do I commit an L16B1 violation if I now take advantage of my information about the correct meaning of the 2D bid? However, I rate this as hesitation as mostly unfathomable. I can think of three reasons why North was hesitating on the actual hand, and I wouldn't have thought of one of them while sitting South. The only reason I would have thought of for the hesitation was that we were missing two controls and partner was deciding what to do. That suggests passing rather than bidding on. Would I have had to bid on because bidding on was an LA? A QUESTION From the directors' decision: "The BIT demonstrably suggested bidding on." Do we know how they came to that conclusion? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 25 01:37:59 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:37:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A42B8D7.3000304@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] Perhaps Nigel should volunteer to become Australia's Leader of the Opposition (since our current one is in hot water for making a critique based on misleading evidence from a fake email). [Nigel] Misleading evidence from a fake email? Thank you Richard :) From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Jun 25 02:02:36 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:02:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A42B8D7.3000304@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <002501c9f528$498b1b40$2401a8c0@p41600> Why not go back to first principals and hang the lot of 'em?? lnb ******************* Visit Sheep-R-Us.cwm ******************* > [Richard Hills] > Perhaps Nigel should volunteer to become Australia's Leader of the > Opposition (since our current one is in hot water for making a > critique based on misleading evidence from a fake email). > > [Nigel] > Misleading evidence from a fake email? Thank you Richard :) > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.90/2200 - Release Date: 06/24/09 12:49:00 -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 1972 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 25 02:49:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:49:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >SUMMARY > >If I pause to think about a call or play, and instead of sitting >there like a bump on a log my partner uses this time to come to >some awareness, there is no infraction and the opps get no >protection. Am I missing something? >... Richard Hills: What Bob is missing is that he is making a "we hold this truth to be self-evident" assertion. Bob does not quote any Laws to justify his "self-evident truth", so what we have is a clear case of my favourite "petitio principii" fallacy. Robert Frick, petitio principii fallacy: >...As suggested above, if it was just extra time, it was >perfectly legal... Richard Hills: Earlier I quoted the general Law 40C3(a) prohibiting aids to memory, and the indicative example in Law 75A which describes the correct procedure (continuing to call in accordance with one's original misunderstanding) after one receives such a memory aid. But it seems that Bob is not arguing the point that one cannot use memory aids, but rather arguing the "self-evident truth" that partner's break in tempo cannot be information providing a memory aid. A self-evident Law which counters Bob's "self-evident truth" about nil information would be: Law 73C: "...information from his partner...haste or hesitation...carefully avoid taking any advantage..." Richard Hills: Ergo, it is entirely Lawful for a Director to use this reasoning: (a) South has sometimes misbid before, and (b) When South has previously misbid, and North could tell from his hand that South has misbid, North has sometimes previously broken tempo to try to work out exactly how South has misbid, and (c) In this specific non-NABC case 1, South misbid her response to Keycard Blackwood, originally thinking she was showing three keycards, but systemically showing two keycards and the queen of diamonds, and (d) In this specific non-NABC case 1, North knows that either the deck contains two queens of diamonds, or that South has misbid, and (e) North now breaks tempo (the reason for North breaking tempo in this specific non-NABC case 1 is irrelevant, since the issue is what the tempo-break causes South to think), and (f) In this specific non-NABC case 1, South is aware that North calling in tempo is consistent with North believing that South has not misbid. South is also aware that North breaking tempo is consistent with many things, one of which is North's belief that South has misbid. So when a tempo-break by North happens, it is a reminder for South to undertake a cost-nothing double-check of South's previous bidding. Thus the Director may Lawfully adjust the score under Law 40C3(a). Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 25 06:34:41 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:34:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:49:21 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> SUMMARY >> >> If I pause to think about a call or play, and instead of sitting >> there like a bump on a log my partner uses this time to come to >> some awareness, there is no infraction and the opps get no >> protection. Am I missing something? >> ... > > Richard Hills: > > What Bob is missing is that he is making a "we hold this truth to > be self-evident" assertion. Bob does not quote any Laws to > justify his "self-evident truth", so what we have is a clear case > of my favourite "petitio principii" fallacy. > > Robert Frick, petitio principii fallacy: > >> ...As suggested above, if it was just extra time, it was >> perfectly legal... > > Richard Hills: > > Earlier I quoted the general Law 40C3(a) prohibiting aids to > memory, and the indicative example in Law 75A which describes the > correct procedure (continuing to call in accordance with one's > original misunderstanding) after one receives such a memory aid. Sorry Richard, I did not realize you were sticking to your point that extra time is an illegal memory aid. > > But it seems that Bob is not arguing the point that one cannot > use memory aids, but rather arguing the "self-evident truth" that > partner's break in tempo cannot be information providing a memory > aid. A self-evident Law which counters Bob's "self-evident truth" > about nil information would be: > > Law 73C: > > "...information from his partner...haste or hesitation...carefully > avoid taking any advantage..." > > Richard Hills: > > Ergo, it is entirely Lawful for a Director to use this reasoning: > > (a) South has sometimes misbid before, > > and > > (b) When South has previously misbid, and North could tell from > his hand that South has misbid, North has sometimes previously > broken tempo to try to work out exactly how South has misbid, > > and > > (c) In this specific non-NABC case 1, South misbid her response to > Keycard Blackwood, originally thinking she was showing three > keycards, but systemically showing two keycards and the queen of > diamonds, > > and > > (d) In this specific non-NABC case 1, North knows that either the > deck contains two queens of diamonds, or that South has misbid, > > and > > (e) North now breaks tempo (the reason for North breaking tempo in > this specific non-NABC case 1 is irrelevant, since the issue is > what the tempo-break causes South to think), > > and > > (f) In this specific non-NABC case 1, South is aware that North > calling in tempo is consistent with North believing that South has > not misbid. South is also aware that North breaking tempo is > consistent with many things, one of which is North's belief that > South has misbid. > > So when a tempo-break by North happens, it is a reminder for South > to undertake a cost-nothing double-check of South's previous > bidding. > > Thus the Director may Lawfully adjust the score under Law 40C3(a). > > > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 25 06:46:45 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:46:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 (hesitations as illegal memory aides) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:49:21 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> SUMMARY >> >> If I pause to think about a call or play, and instead of sitting >> there like a bump on a log my partner uses this time to come to >> some awareness, there is no infraction and the opps get no >> protection. Am I missing something? >> ... > > Richard Hills: > > What Bob is missing is that he is making a "we hold this truth to > be self-evident" assertion. Bob does not quote any Laws to > justify his "self-evident truth", so what we have is a clear case > of my favourite "petitio principii" fallacy. > > Robert Frick, petitio principii fallacy: > >> ...As suggested above, if it was just extra time, it was >> perfectly legal... > > Richard Hills: > > Earlier I quoted the general Law 40C3(a) prohibiting aids to > memory, and the indicative example in Law 75A which describes the > correct procedure (continuing to call in accordance with one's > original misunderstanding) after one receives such a memory aid. > > But it seems that Bob is not arguing the point that one cannot > use memory aids, but rather arguing the "self-evident truth" that > partner's break in tempo cannot be information providing a memory > aid. A self-evident Law which counters Bob's "self-evident truth" > about nil information would be: > > Law 73C: > > "...information from his partner...haste or hesitation...carefully > avoid taking any advantage..." > > Richard Hills: > > Ergo, it is entirely Lawful for a Director to use this reasoning: > > (a) South has sometimes misbid before, > > and > > (b) When South has previously misbid, and North could tell from > his hand that South has misbid, North has sometimes previously > broken tempo to try to work out exactly how South has misbid, > > and > > (c) In this specific non-NABC case 1, South misbid her response to > Keycard Blackwood, originally thinking she was showing three > keycards, but systemically showing two keycards and the queen of > diamonds, > > and > > (d) In this specific non-NABC case 1, North knows that either the > deck contains two queens of diamonds, or that South has misbid, > > and > > (e) North now breaks tempo (the reason for North breaking tempo in > this specific non-NABC case 1 is irrelevant, since the issue is > what the tempo-break causes South to think), > > and > > (f) In this specific non-NABC case 1, South is aware that North > calling in tempo is consistent with North believing that South has > not misbid. South is also aware that North breaking tempo is > consistent with many things, one of which is North's belief that > South has misbid. > > So when a tempo-break by North happens, it is a reminder for South > to undertake a cost-nothing double-check of South's previous > bidding. > > Thus the Director may Lawfully adjust the score under Law 40C3(a). So you are saying that hesitations are also illegal aids to memory, technique, or calculation. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 25 08:59:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:59:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A4213F5.9070603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills, March 2002: >>Suppose input from BLML to the WBF Laws Committee results in an >>unambiguous new edition of the Laws. Then BLML will have >>simultaneously justified its existence, and terminated its need >>to continue to exist. David Stevenson, March 2002: >True, just as the same time as everyone in Europe finds >promulgations from Brussels unambiguous and EU lawyers are no >longer needed. Around the same time there will be a nice man in >a scarlet coat every Xmas giving us all pressies, and every time >we lose a tooth and put it under our pillow there will be a nice >shiny Euro next day. Israel and Palestine will become friends, >everyone will like nice Saddam Hussein, and ..... > >Sorry, what were you saying? I think I drifted off for a moment. Grattan Endicott, March 2002: +=+ I think interpretation of the laws is a futile objective for blml. That is the role of bodies given the authority to interpret. A valid use of blml is to spread awareness of official interpretations. A secondary role is to draw attention to any gaps or need to clarify - and I am not sanguine that everything can or will be foreseen even when 'unambiguous' laws are in print. However, a far more important role for blml in my opinion is one that helps TDs, and especially those who do not receive adequate training from their NBOs, to develop their skills in their jobs. Procedures for TDs and the application of the given Law are subjects that will not die and I think blml as an open public seminarium has a valuable contribution to offer. ~ G ~ +=+ Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 25 09:23:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:23:06 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <7763707.1245914586604.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 25/06/2009 0:10 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Grattan Endicott: > >>>+=+ The cursory reporting above calls for amplification. > Grattan Endicott was not complaining about any cursory reporting >in Nigel's Original post. Rather Grattan specifically quoted >"above" a Later post by Nigel in which Nigel cursorily and >misleadingly paraphrased the committee's reasoning. > +=+ Even more, perhaps, my feeling is that the scribe reduced his account to a point of over-simplification and that is where the amplification would be most desirable. Nigel merely reduced an account that was already significantly reduced. It is a general complaint of mine that much of the external discussion of appeals lacks a complete awareness of what the AC knew. Reports of appeals are necessarily selective. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 25 09:44:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:44:50 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <4406819.1245915890860.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 25/06/2009 7:59 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Richard Hills, March 2002: > >>>Suppose input from BLML to the WBF Laws Committee results in an unambiguous new edition of the Laws. Then BLML will have >>>simultaneously justified its existence, and terminated its need >>>to continue to exist. > >David Stevenson, March 2002: > >>True, just as the same time as everyone in Europe finds >>promulgations from Brussels unambiguous and EU lawyers are no longer needed. Around the same time there will be a nice man in a scarlet coat every Xmas giving us all pressies, and every time we lose a tooth and put it under our pillow there will be a nice shiny Euro next day. Israel and Palestine will become friends, everyone will like nice Saddam Hussein, and ..... ..... >>Sorry, what were you saying? I think I drifted off for a moment. > .......................................................... >Grattan Endicott, March 2002: > >+=+ I think interpretation of the laws is a futile objective for >blml. That is the role of bodies given the authority to interpret. >A valid use of blml is to spread awareness of official >interpretations. A secondary role is to draw attention to any gaps >or need to clarify - and I am not sanguine that everything can or >will be foreseen even when 'unambiguous' laws are in print. > However, a far more important role for blml in my opinion >is one that helps TDs, and especially those who do not receive >adequate training from their NBOs, to develop their skills in >their jobs. Procedures for TDs and the application of the given >Law are subjects that will not die and I think blml as an open >public seminarium has a valuable contribution to offer. > ~ G ~ +=+ > +=+ Dear me, did I say that? I find it still represents broadly my views in 2009. The training of TDs has gradually improved but there are still pockets that do not have the resources to do it sufficiently. One can advise the tiny and remote nations to lean on the publications of the WBF and the larger Federations. I am a supporter of the EBU white book and orange book so naturally I recommend a visit to the EBU website. Regulations can always include a stateemtnt that "in default of a regulation here the Director may refer to 'xxxxx'". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 25 11:10:15 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:10:15 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] History Message-ID: <10535029.1245921015762.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> I note that 133 years ago today at Little Bighorn in Montana the Cheyenne and Sioux wiped out the 7th Cavalry led by Lt. Colonel George A. Custer. Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 25 11:44:04 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:44:04 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 (hesitations as illegal memory aides) Message-ID: <8348985.1245923044419.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: rfrick at rfrick.info >Date: 25/06/2009 5:46 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 (hesitations as illegal memory aides) > So you are saying that hesitations are also illegal aids to memory, >technique, or calculation. > +=+ In a long and toruous dissertation Richard eventually arrives at the correct application of law, if not entirely accurate in specifying the grounds for rectification. The hesitation conveys extraneous information and anything partner learns in consequence of that he may not use. At root we are once more in Law 16B territory and the Director should consider his action under Law 16B3. Laterally Richard's references to Laws t3C and 75 are apposite, bolstering the fundamental truth that South may not take advantage of being reminded of his system by North's pause. He must continue to bid on the basis of his misunderstanding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 25 12:19:43 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:19:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7763707.1245914586604.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <7763707.1245914586604.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <4A434F3F.5060409@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Even more, perhaps, my feeling is that the scribe reduced his account to a point of over-simplification and that is where the amplification would be most desirable. Nigel merely reduced an account that was already significantly reduced. It is a general complaint of mine that much of the external discussion of appeals lacks a complete awareness of what the AC knew. reports of appeals are necessarily selective. [Nigel] If the committee discuss significant relevant facts or arguments, I agree that its scribe should take care to include them in a report intended for publication. I quoted the Bulletin report in my original post. Subsequently, I commented on Harald Skj?ran's reply, using relevant excerpts from report. I indicated "snips" with "...". Please comment on my concerns, the gist of which were ... [1] When establishing logical alternatives, should the director trust his own bidding judgement rather than that of the players' peers? [2] Was the director's player-poll flawed? Should the director have continued polling until he found more players who would pass immediately over 4S? [3] The committee reversed the director's decision ... The South player seems to have thought the double was *penalty* but the committee don't appear to have established if that was the partnership understanding. Could a slow *penalty* double suggest bidding on? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 25 13:34:06 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:34:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A4360AE.2020302@yahoo.co.uk> [Robert Frick] However, I rate this as hesitation as mostly unfathomable. I can think of three reasons why North was hesitating on the actual hand, and I wouldn't have thought of one of them while sitting South. The only reason I would have thought of for the hesitation was that we were missing two controls and partner was deciding what to do. That suggests passing rather than bidding on. Would I have had to bid on because bidding on was an LA? [Nigel] Robert, do you agree that even when unauthorised information from your partner is "unfathomable" to the director, in an experienced partnership you can often discern its import. Example: RHO opens 1D, you overcall 3C and LHO passes. After several minutes thought, your regular partner bids 4C. Your 3C was intended to show the majors (Ghestem) but during partner's hesitation, you remember that you recently agreed to use 3C as a weak jump overcall, instead. Had 3C been Ghestem, 4C would be a conventional slam try agreeing Hearts. Hence, you judge that bidding on would be mounting a roller-coaster to disaster. Do you think you can ethically pass, Robert? IMO the legal point is that: Its OK for partner to impart unauthorised information, unintentionally. But you should eschew a suggested action if (without the UI) there is a logical alternative. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 25 13:45:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:45:01 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <18077787.1245930301588.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk >Date: 25/06/2009 11:19 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >[Grattan Endicott] >+=+ Even more, perhaps, my feeling is that the scribe reduced >his account to a point of over-simplification and that is where >the amplification would be most desirable. Nigel merely reduced >an account that was already significantly reduced. It is a >general complaint of mine that much of the external discussion >of appeals lacks a complete awareness of what the AC knew. reports of >appeals are necessarily selective. > >[Nigel] >If the committee discuss significant relevant facts or arguments, I >agree that its scribe should take care to include them in a report >intended for publication. > >I quoted the Bulletin report in my original post. Subsequently, I >commented on Harald Skj?ran's reply, using relevant excerpts from >report. I indicated "snips" with "...". > >Please comment on my concerns, the gist of which were ... > >[1] When establishing logical alternatives, should the director trust >his own bidding judgement rather than that of the players' peers? > >[2] Was the director's player-poll flawed? Should the director have >continued polling until he found more players who would pass immediately >over 4S? > >[3] The committee reversed the director's decision ... The South player >seems to have thought the double was *penalty* but the committee don't >appear to have established if that was the partnership understanding. >Could a slow *penalty* double suggest bidding on? > +=+ IMHO: 1. The Director should draw his conclusions based on what he hears from players consulted. There was no doubt in the committee that he had polled to the best of his ability and indeed that pass was a logical alternative. The ruling was made in consultation with other TDs, including the Director in charge of the room. 2. There are very few players sitting out here and not all of them are fit for purpose. He did try. 3. The South player did not know his partner had five clubs and Qxx in Hearts. So surely on general strength he was primarily doubling for penalties. North was well able to understand this from his additional (and lawful) knowledge of the hand. South is so strong that action is indicated; if he knew what North knew he would bid 5C. It was also clear to North from his knowledge of fit that it would be bad bridge judgement to pass. 4. The delay in returning the tray does not tell North anything that the auction does not tell him. He is free to exercise his judgement. I am not sure what more there might be to add here. Do you still have a problem? ~ G ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 25 14:23:31 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:23:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [Bulk] Re: EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <18077787.1245930301588.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <18077787.1245930301588.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <4A436C43.4050904@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan Endicott] 1. The Director should draw his conclusions based on what he hears from players consulted. There was no doubt in the committee that he had polled to the best of his ability and indeed that pass was a logical alternative. The ruling was made in consultation with other TDs, including the Director in charge of the room. 2. There are very few players sitting out here and not all of them are fit for purpose. He did try. 3. The South player did not know his partner had five clubs and Qxx in Hearts. So surely on general strength he was primarily doubling for penalties. North was well able to understand this from his additional (and lawful) knowledge of the hand. South is so strong that action is indicated; if he knew what North knew he would bid 5C. It was also clear to North from his knowledge of fit that it would be bad bridge judgement to pass. 4. The delay in returning the tray does not tell North anything that the auction does not tell him. He is free to exercise his judgement. I am not sure what more there might be to add here. Do you still have a problem? [Nigel] Thank you, Grattan, I'm grateful to you for the explanation but I still have lingering doubts ... [A] The director established (to his satisfaction) that pass of 4SX is a logical alternative for North. [B] The committee determined that South's early bidding showed at least 5 clubs and 4 hearts. Systemically, however, South's double of 4S was primarily penalty. But it was slow, so it suggested that North bid on. BLML directors appear to agree with Grattan so perhaps, in this case, my interpretation of the law is wrong; if so, there is no point in further discussion.. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 25 15:33:07 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:33:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> SUMMARY >> >> If I pause to think about a call or play, and instead of sitting >> there like a bump on a log my partner uses this time to come to >> some awareness, there is no infraction and the opps get no >> protection. Am I missing something? >> ... > > Richard Hills: > > What Bob is missing is that he is making a "we hold this truth to > be self-evident" assertion. Bob does not quote any Laws to > justify his "self-evident truth", so what we have is a clear case > of my favourite "petitio principii" fallacy. > > Robert Frick, petitio principii fallacy: > >> ...As suggested above, if it was just extra time, it was >> perfectly legal... > > Richard Hills: > > Earlier I quoted the general Law 40C3(a) prohibiting aids to > memory, and the indicative example in Law 75A which describes the > correct procedure (continuing to call in accordance with one's > original misunderstanding) after one receives such a memory aid. > > But it seems that Bob is not arguing the point that one cannot > use memory aids, but rather arguing the "self-evident truth" that > partner's break in tempo cannot be information providing a memory > aid. A self-evident Law which counters Bob's "self-evident truth" > about nil information would be: > > Law 73C: > > "...information from his partner...haste or hesitation...carefully > avoid taking any advantage..." It does seem a bit of a stretch to categorize knowing the identity of the thirteen cards you hold in your own hand as "information from... partner". > Richard Hills: > > Ergo, it is entirely Lawful for a Director to use this reasoning: > > (a) South has sometimes misbid before, > > and > > (b) When South has previously misbid, and North could tell from > his hand that South has misbid, North has sometimes previously > broken tempo to try to work out exactly how South has misbid, > > and > > (c) In this specific non-NABC case 1, South misbid her response to > Keycard Blackwood, originally thinking she was showing three > keycards, but systemically showing two keycards and the queen of > diamonds, > > and > > (d) In this specific non-NABC case 1, North knows that either the > deck contains two queens of diamonds, or that South has misbid, > > and > > (e) North now breaks tempo (the reason for North breaking tempo in > this specific non-NABC case 1 is irrelevant, since the issue is > what the tempo-break causes South to think), ...as does categorizing something that carries no specific information, but merely "causes [you] to think", as an "aid[] to... memory, calculation or technique". > and > > (f) In this specific non-NABC case 1, South is aware that North > calling in tempo is consistent with North believing that South has > not misbid. South is also aware that North breaking tempo is > consistent with many things, one of which is North's belief that > South has misbid. > > So when a tempo-break by North happens, it is a reminder for South > to undertake a cost-nothing double-check of South's previous > bidding. > > Thus the Director may Lawfully adjust the score under Law 40C3(a). My regular partner couldn't make the game tonight, and I am playing with a last-minute substitute. Contemplating a tough call, this fact slips my mind, and I come up with a call that would be just fine in my regular system with my regular partner, but, playing standard vanilla with my substitute, has taken the auction entirely off the rails. Then I look up, and remember to my horror that I'm not playing my regular system with my regular partner. By Richard's reasoning, my partner's physical appearance would seem to be an "aid[] to [my] memory" and her identity "information from [my] partner". Does that leave me ethically or legally bound to not try to recover the auction, but to continue bidding as though still under the misapprehension that I have my usual partner in the seat opposite? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 25 16:36:20 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:36:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <18077787.1245930301588.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <18077787.1245930301588.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 06:45 To: Subject: Re: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>----Original Message---- >>From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk >>Date: 25/06/2009 11:19 >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>Subj: Re: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >>[Grattan Endicott] >>+=+ Even more, perhaps, my feeling is that the scribe reduced >>his account to a point of over-simplification and that is where >>the amplification would be most desirable. Nigel merely reduced >>an account that was already significantly reduced. It is a >>general complaint of mine that much of the external discussion >>of appeals lacks a complete awareness of what the AC knew. reports of >>appeals are necessarily selective. >> >>[Nigel] >>If the committee discuss significant relevant facts or arguments, I >>agree that its scribe should take care to include them in a report >>intended for publication. >> >>I quoted the Bulletin report in my original post. Subsequently, I >>commented on Harald Skj?ran's reply, using relevant excerpts from >>report. I indicated "snips" with "...". >> >>Please comment on my concerns, the gist of which were ... >> >>[1] When establishing logical alternatives, should the director trust >>his own bidding judgement rather than that of the players' peers? >> >>[2] Was the director's player-poll flawed? Should the director have >>continued polling until he found more players who would pass immediately >>over 4S? >> >>[3] The committee reversed the director's decision ... The South player >>seems to have thought the double was *penalty* but the committee don't >>appear to have established if that was the partnership understanding. >>Could a slow *penalty* double suggest bidding on? > +=+ IMHO: > 1. The Director should draw his conclusions based on > what he hears from players consulted. There was no doubt > in the committee that he had polled to the best of his ability > and indeed that pass was a logical alternative. The ruling > was made in consultation with other TDs, including the > Director in charge of the room. > 2. There are very few players sitting out here and not > all of them are fit for purpose. He did try. > 3. The South player did not know his partner had five > clubs and Qxx in Hearts. So surely on general strength > he was primarily doubling for penalties. North was well able > to understand this from his additional (and lawful) knowledge > of the hand. South is so strong that action is indicated; if he > knew what North knew he would bid 5C. It was also clear > to North from his knowledge of fit that it would be bad bridge > judgement to pass. Is it possible that 5C goes down based on AI? Is it possible that 4S goes down based on AI? When both answers are yes then Pass is a reasonable action. Are there possible inferences from a slow penalty double suggestive that 4S is likely to make? If yes, then 5C is demonstrably suggested over pass. The problem I have with Grattan?s assertion is that I have failed to find the passage within L16B that makes provision for mitigation of UI via AI. regards roger pewick > 4. The delay in returning the tray does not tell North > anything that the auction does not tell him. Additionally, I am not inclined to concur. I fail to see why a hand strong enough to contract for nine tricks opposite a broke partner without promise of a fit will not be strong enough [even in spite of a possible monster fit** ] to defeat 4S on its own power when the hand so suggests by double. The meaning is that Double need not guarantee a ?much stronger hand than 3H?. the additional inference from the passage of time being tenuous holdings for the double and or an enviable anticipated playing strength of the hand. apropos, last weekend my partner held Kxxxx-Kxxx-Tx-Jx opposite a very minimum 1S opening. the auction progressed to 5D upon which pard forfeited four defensive tricks by continuing to 5S after blasting to 4S. >He is free to exercise his judgement. > I am not sure what more there might > be to add here. Do you still have a problem? > ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 26 02:30:52 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:30:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: A Night at the Opera (1935): Fiorello: Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here, this thing here? Driftwood: Oh, that? Oh, that's the usual clause that's in every contract. That just says, uh, it says, uh, if any of the parties participating in this contract are shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically nullified. Fiorello: Well, I don't know... Driftwood: It's all right. That's, that's in every contract. That's, that's what they call a sanity clause. Fiorello: Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You can't fool me. There ain't no Sanity Clause! Imps Dlr: South Vul: North-South You, South, hold K43 72 AJT85 932 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Richard Klavs Hills Kalejs --- --- --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) 2C (2) 2D (3) Pass 2H Pass ? (1) 12-14 hcp, balanced (2) 9-14 hcp, unspecified single-suiter (Cappelletti convention) (3) Natural and non-forcing What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 26 03:22:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:22:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >It does seem a bit of a stretch to categorize knowing the identity >of the thirteen cards you hold in your own hand as "information >from...partner". Richard Hills: A very interesting point. Not relevant to the facts of the stem case (where South knew she held thirteen cards which included three keycards for diamonds, but originally believed that her 5S response to Keycard Blackwood promised those three keycards until reminded otherwise). Suppose that: (a) Your partnership plays disciplined Weak Two Bids, always six card suits, never five nor seven. (b) You open 2H. (c) Your LHO asks partner about the meaning of your call. (c) Your partner, who holds eight hearts, is not a Laws expert, so in addition to saying "5 to 9 hcp with 6 hearts" also says "but I think my pard has made a mistake". (d) The comment from partner inspires you to re-examine your hand. (e) You initially believed that you held six hearts and one diamond in your hand; you now discover that you hold one heart and six diamonds. (f) So you have made a mistake; you should have opened a Weak 2D. Is correctly sorting your hand after a reminder Lawful or unLawful? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 26 03:29:47 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:29:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 (hesitations as illegal memory aides) In-Reply-To: <8348985.1245923044419.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <8348985.1245923044419.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:44:04 -0400, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > >> ----Original Message---- >> From: rfrick at rfrick.info >> Date: 25/06/2009 5:46 >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 (hesitations as illegal memory > aides) >> > So you are saying that hesitations are also illegal aids to memory, >> technique, or calculation. >> > +=+ In a long and toruous dissertation Richard eventually > arrives at the correct application of law, if not entirely > accurate in specifying the grounds for rectification. The > hesitation conveys extraneous information and anything > partner learns in consequence of that he may not use. > At > root we are once more in Law 16B territory and the > Director should consider his action under Law 16B3. One fatomable reason for a hesitation on this auction is that North thinks they are off two controls and is deciding between 6D (hope that one of the missing controls is an onside king) versus 5S (hope that a 5-2 fit doesn't have any trump losers and 6D is not making). Once South wakes up, a hesitation thus suggests they might be off a control, which suggests passing. Pass is not the only LA (and may not even be an LA). If NS were off an ace and ended up in 6D making 6, I could understand the director correcting to 7D down one. I don't know if I actually like that decision, but I like it a lot more than the current one. When my partner hesitates, as far as I know I never take that as a cue that I have misbid. When I hesitate, as far as I know my partner doesn't take that as a cue that he misbid. So, to me, "partner is hesitating because I misbid and now he can't figure out the hand" is in the unfathomable departnent. It just doesn't cross my mind. (1) So I don't believe that the hesitation suggests misbid in any practical way. You could just as easily said that the hesitation suggested that North had spade support. (The hesitation allows extra time to discover a misbid or unintended call, but then I think we are not in L16B territory.) > Laterally Richard's references to Laws t3C and 75 are > apposite, bolstering the fundamental truth that South may > not take advantage of being reminded of his system by > North's pause. He must continue to bid on the basis of > his misunderstanding. I fail to see the relevance of L75, which specifically addresses itself to mistaken explanations. Those are very good cues for a misbid. I agree that if the hesitation has caused the player to consciously think "maybe I have misbid the hand", which in turns causes the player to discover the misbid, that player may have obligations that are not present when the player merely wakes up to the fact of the misbid. Bob (1) I am guessing that this situation -- partner is hesitating because I have misbid and now it is hard for partner to figure out my hand -- doesn't occur often. Ironically, last Monday night it did, in a Blackwood sequence. I had to guess whether we were playing 1430 or regular Blackwood. I knew I was guessing Partner hesitated, and it never crossed my mind that his hesitation was caused by my misbid, even though it probably was. (He couldn't grapple with the idea that I had opened the bidding without any controls.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 26 04:10:01 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:10:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Brisbane 2009 directors' weekend seminar [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Dear Director This year's directors' seminar will be held at the Queensland Bridge Association premises in Brisbane on the weekend of 31 October/1 November. Please mark it in your diary. Our previous weekend seminars, in Sydney and Melbourne, have been well attended and very successful. This year's event will be fully supported by the QBA and promises to be better than ever. The detailed programme will be circulated soon. The conference fee is only $50. As before, ABDA will provide a travel/accommodation subsidy to directors who have to travel more than 100km to Brisbane, at the rate of 30?/km for the distance involved, capped this year at $400. It would be appreciated if those directors who are going to attend would advise me as soon as possible so that we can get an estimate of the numbers involved. This will help the QBA to negotiate accommodation prices. ................................................... Rgds ... Mike Phillips Treasurer, ABDA PO Box 836, Artarmon, NSW 1570 02 9901 3373 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 26 04:11:03 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:11:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A4360AE.2020302@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4A4360AE.2020302@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:34:06 -0400, nige1 wrote: > [Robert Frick] > However, I rate this as hesitation as mostly unfathomable. I can think > of three reasons why North was hesitating on the actual hand, and I > wouldn't have thought of one of them while sitting South. The only > reason I would have thought of for the hesitation was that we were > missing two controls and partner was deciding what to do. That suggests > passing rather than bidding on. Would I have had to bid on because > bidding on was an LA? > > [Nigel] > Robert, do you agree that even when unauthorised information from your > partner is "unfathomable" to the director, in an experienced partnership > you can often discern its import. > > Example: RHO opens 1D, you overcall 3C and LHO passes. After several > minutes thought, your regular partner bids 4C. Your 3C was intended to > show the majors (Ghestem) but during partner's hesitation, you remember > that you recently agreed to use 3C as a weak jump overcall, instead. Had > 3C been Ghestem, 4C would be a conventional slam try agreeing Hearts. > Hence, you judge that bidding on would be mounting a roller-coaster to > disaster. Do you think you can ethically pass, Robert? While I am thinking about this, what about my question? LHO opens 2D, partner hesitates and eventually doubles, I wonder what partner could have been thinking about, and ask if 2D was natural. It turns out it is not, but I was thinking about the previous hand and did not here the alert? Is it an L16 violation if I now bid as if the 2D bid was not natural? Okay. Following a Ghestem bid, Partner is expected to bid 4C slowly (because he has to evaluate his hand and recall the responses). Thus it does not convey any more information than an expected alert or correct explanation of my bid. If I discover my error during this time, it is a case of me just waking up durng that time and everything is legal. Did you want to change it to a 4C bid in tempo? 4C bid in tempo suggests that partner has misunderstood my Ghestem bid. This suggests pass, and bidding on logically must be an LA. But I realize that I misbid. I think I just woke up, so I don't have any ethical obligations to not use that information. The director won't be able to tell whether I just woke up or used the lack of hesitation. If he decides I used the lack of hesitation, then.... it depends on how you answered my question. Bob From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Jun 26 07:55:28 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:55:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 (hesitations as illegal memory aides) In-Reply-To: <8348985.1245923044419.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <8348985.1245923044419.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <200906260556.n5Q5txrs020835@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 07:44 PM 25/06/2009, you wrote: > >----Original Message---- > >From: rfrick at rfrick.info > >Date: 25/06/2009 5:46 > >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 (hesitations as illegal > memory >aides) > > >So you are saying that hesitations are also illegal aids to memory, > >technique, or calculation. > > >+=+ In a long and toruous dissertation Richard eventually Nice word Grattan! I must find an opportunity to use it Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jun 26 08:16:24 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:16:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/6/26 : > > A Night at the Opera (1935): > > Fiorello: ?Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here, this thing here? > > Driftwood: Oh, that? Oh, that's the usual clause that's in every > ? ? ? ? ? contract. That just says, uh, it says, uh, if any of the > ? ? ? ? ? parties participating in this contract are shown not to be > ? ? ? ? ? in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically > ? ? ? ? ? nullified. > > Fiorello: ?Well, I don't know... > > Driftwood: It's all right. That's, that's in every contract. That's, > ? ? ? ? ? that's what they call a sanity clause. > > Fiorello: ?Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You can't fool me. There ain't no Sanity > ? ? ? ? ? Clause! > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > You, South, hold > > K43 > 72 > AJT85 > 932 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > Richard ? ? ? ? ? ? Klavs > Hills ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Kalejs > --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? Pass > Pass ? ? ?1NT(1) ? ?2C (2) ? ?2D (3) > Pass ? ? ?2H ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ?? > > (1) 12-14 hcp, balanced > (2) 9-14 hcp, unspecified single-suiter (Cappelletti convention) > (3) Natural and non-forcing > > What call do you make? At the moment, none. That depends upon our opening style with hands with a 5-card major. If we never open such hand 1NT, or only with a bad suit, I'm not passing now. However, if my partner alerted my 2D or, on question, explained it as a transfer, my choises are somewhat lilmited. > What other calls do you consider making? > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 26 08:31:07 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:31:07 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 (hesitations as illegal memory aides) Message-ID: <9793662.1245997867011.JavaMail.root@ps30> +=+ Not done to a 't'. +=+ >----Original Message---- >From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au >Date: 26/06/2009 6:55 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 (hesitations as illegal memory aides) > >At 07:44 PM 25/06/2009, you wrote: > > >> >----Original Message---- >> >From: rfrick at rfrick.info >> >Date: 25/06/2009 5:46 >> >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> >Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 (hesitations as illegal >> memory >>aides) >> > >>So you are saying that hesitations are also illegal aids to memory, >> >technique, or calculation. >> > >>+=+ In a long and toruous dissertation Richard eventually > >Nice word Grattan! I must find an opportunity to use it > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 26 08:32:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:32:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4406819.1245915890860.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: >>+=+ In a long and toruous dissertation Richard eventually >Nice word Grattan! I must find an opportunity to use it > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) Limited opportunities to use "toruous"; my tortuous mind imitates Harry Potter by always spell checking. :-) :-) 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 Brian Meadows asserted (April 2002): >As far as online bridge is concerned, you can toss the laws >concerning hesitations out of the window, and most people with >any experience of online bridge realise that. Tim West-Meads quibbled (April 2002): Personally I have yet to realise it. "Thinking" hesitations are harder to detect on-line - but far from impossible. If your partner is suffering a poor connection it is often obvious fairly quickly and breaks in tempo don't make any UI available. It's similar to not being under UI constraints if partner breaks tempo because he was obviously distracted at the table (fishing for his ciggys/ordering coffee/earwigging the bitter argument at the next table etc). If the connections at the table are reasonably good then hesitations are just that and you take advantage of the opponents' and avoid bids suggested by partner's - just like face to face. I think I played a couple of hundred hands before I gained sufficient experience of the environment to detect the difference between technological and UI bearing hesitations with reasonable reliability. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 26 09:27:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:27:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Imps >>Dlr: South >>Vul: North-South >> >>You, South, hold >> >>K43 >>72 >>AJT85 >>932 >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>Richard Klavs >>Hills Kalejs >>--- --- --- Pass >>Pass 1NT(1) 2C (2) 2D (3) >>Pass 2H Pass ? >> >>(1) 12-14 hcp, balanced >>(2) 9-14 hcp, unspecified single-suiter (Cappelletti >>convention) >>(3) Natural and non-forcing >> >>What call do you make? Harald Skj?ran: >At the moment, none. That depends upon our opening style with >hands with a 5-card major. If we never open such hand 1NT, or >only with a bad suit, I'm not passing now. However, if my >partner alerted my 2D or, on question, explained it as a >transfer, my choices are somewhat limited. Richard Hills: Yes, South's partner alerted, and that Law 73C "unexpected* alert" (with the Law 73C footnote defining unexpected as "i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action") meant that South now remembered his partnership agreement to play System On after a 2C overcall of pard's 1NT. The actual South now knew from the unexpected alert that re- bidding 3D would likely lead to disaster, since by partnership agreement that would show game-invitational values with hearts and diamonds. Ergo, that call was what the Law 73C obeying ethical South actually chose, to "carefully avoid taking any advantage". The complete debacle: A7 A96 KQ43 JT87 Richard Hills Klavs Kalejs QJ852 T96 T8 KQJ543 72 96 AQ65 K4 K43 72 AJT85 932 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Richard Klavs --- --- --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) 2C (2) 2D (3) Pass 2H Pass(4) 3D (5) Pass 4H (6) Pass(7) 5D X Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 hcp, balanced (2) 9-14 hcp, unspecified single-suiter (Cappelletti convention) (3) Alerted, transfer to hearts (4) Sanity from Klavs, not doubling a likely mistake and then letting the opponents find a better, perhaps making, spot in a 3D partscore (5) Game invitational values with hearts and diamonds (6) Liking her maximum and double fit (7) Sanity from Klavs, not doubling a certain mistake and then letting the opponents find a better, perhaps making, spot in a 5D game +500 for Klavs on a partscore deal. And an ethical plus for Law 73 klavs C, with it being obeyed by a player rather than being enforced by a Director. 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 blml at arcor.de Fri Jun 26 09:44:22 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:44:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476138.1246002262333.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > >It does seem a bit of a stretch to categorize knowing the identity > >of the thirteen cards you hold in your own hand as "information > >from...partner". > > Richard Hills: > > A very interesting point. Not relevant to the facts of the stem > case (where South knew she held thirteen cards which included three > keycards for diamonds, but originally believed that her 5S response > to Keycard Blackwood promised those three keycards until reminded > otherwise). > > Suppose that: > > (a) Your partnership plays disciplined Weak Two Bids, always six > card suits, never five nor seven. > > (b) You open 2H. > > (c) Your LHO asks partner about the meaning of your call. > > (c) Your partner, who holds eight hearts, is not a Laws expert, so > in addition to saying "5 to 9 hcp with 6 hearts" also says "but I > think my pard has made a mistake". > > (d) The comment from partner inspires you to re-examine your hand. > > (e) You initially believed that you held six hearts and one > diamond in your hand; you now discover that you hold one heart and > six diamonds. > > (f) So you have made a mistake; you should have opened a Weak 2D. > > Is correctly sorting your hand after a reminder Lawful or unLawful? Partner's comment clearly is UI. While the player holds those 13 cards, the UI is very strong, and it is also evident that the player was not aware of the AI (holding six diamonds rather than six hearts) when he opened the weak two. I will thus rule that "waking up" during the bidding is not allowed; he must continue bidding as if he held six hearts. (Myself, I have done that in the past, and it leads to some fun auctions and very fancy final contracts). But I doubt whether I can also force him to revoke on the second round of diamonds if their side ends up defending. Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 26 12:42:22 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:42:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [Bulk] Re: Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4A4360AE.2020302@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4A44A60E.80508@yahoo.co.uk> [Robert Frick] While I am thinking about this, what about my question? LHO opens 2D, partner hesitates and eventually doubles, I wonder what partner could have been thinking about, and ask if 2D was natural. It turns out it is not, but I was thinking about the previous hand and did not here the alert? Is it an L16 violation if I now bid as if the 2D bid was not natural? Okay. Following a Ghestem bid, Partner is expected to bid 4C slowly (because he has to evaluate his hand and recall the responses). Thus it does not convey any more information than an expected alert or correct explanation of my bid. If I discover my error during this time, it is a case of me just waking up durng that time and everything is legal. Did you want to change it to a 4C bid in tempo? 4C bid in tempo suggests that partner has misunderstood my Ghestem bid. This suggests pass, and bidding on logically must be an LA. But I realize that I misbid. I think I just woke up, so I don't have any ethical obligations to not use that information. The director won't be able to tell whether I just woke up or used the lack of hesitation. If he decides I used the lack of hesitation, then.... it depends on how you answered my question. [Nigel] IMO: - Its OK to let partner's hesitation affect your choice of call, if partner's hesitation simply gives you *extra time* to formulate a better judgement. - The problem arises when you discern the *cause* of partner's hesitation -- and that is some pertinent fact of which you might otherwise have been unaware. Attempting to apply these principles to our two examples: [A] If partner's hesitation over LHO's 2D simply gave you extra time to find out that 2D was alerted, then you are free to use that information. IMO, the director is likely to agree with that assessment. [B] When you bid 3C, intended as Ghestem, and partner goes into the tank for several minutes before bidding 4C, it is true that he might just be deciding if he's worth a slam try; but, if such a long hesitation is uncharacteristic of partner in a simple Ghestem auction, then an alternative explanation is that he knows that your partnership have recently changed to natural jump overcalls and he is worried that you have forgotten -- because LHO passed and he has a lot of clubs. If you "wake up" to your mistake, bid accordingly, and the director deems the latter to be a likely explanation, then I think that the director should consider an adverse ruling. The director rules on the balance of probability, so he will sometimes rule wrongly, in such cases :( In a regular partnership, you are better equipped to detect the reason for partner's hesitation than are the director or your opponents. You should strive to avoid a suggested call if there is a logical alternative. In practice, however, it is easy to convince yourself that you reached the correct conclusion, by other means; and it is often hard for opponents or the director to guess what has happened. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 26 14:57:59 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:57:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 In-Reply-To: References: <18077787.1245930301588.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <99322541-DF77-4FAB-88AF-29A20F5D66CE@starpower.net> On Jun 25, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Pewick wrote: > From: > >>> From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk >>> >>> [Grattan Endicott] >>> +=+ Even more, perhaps, my feeling is that the scribe reduced >>> his account to a point of over-simplification and that is where >>> the amplification would be most desirable. Nigel merely reduced >>> an account that was already significantly reduced. It is a >>> general complaint of mine that much of the external discussion >>> of appeals lacks a complete awareness of what the AC knew. >>> reports of >>> appeals are necessarily selective. >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> If the committee discuss significant relevant facts or arguments, I >>> agree that its scribe should take care to include them in a report >>> intended for publication. >>> >>> I quoted the Bulletin report in my original post. Subsequently, I >>> commented on Harald Skj?ran's reply, using relevant excerpts from >>> report. I indicated "snips" with "...". >>> >>> Please comment on my concerns, the gist of which were ... >>> >>> [1] When establishing logical alternatives, should the director >>> trust >>> his own bidding judgement rather than that of the players' peers? >>> >>> [2] Was the director's player-poll flawed? Should the director have >>> continued polling until he found more players who would pass >>> immediately >>> over 4S? >>> >>> [3] The committee reversed the director's decision ... The South >>> player >>> seems to have thought the double was *penalty* but the committee >>> don't >>> appear to have established if that was the partnership >>> understanding. >>> Could a slow *penalty* double suggest bidding on? >> >> +=+ IMHO: >> 1. The Director should draw his conclusions based on >> what he hears from players consulted. There was no doubt >> in the committee that he had polled to the best of his ability >> and indeed that pass was a logical alternative. The ruling >> was made in consultation with other TDs, including the >> Director in charge of the room. >> 2. There are very few players sitting out here and not >> all of them are fit for purpose. He did try. >> 3. The South player did not know his partner had five >> clubs and Qxx in Hearts. So surely on general strength >> he was primarily doubling for penalties. North was well able >> to understand this from his additional (and lawful) knowledge >> of the hand. South is so strong that action is indicated; if he >> knew what North knew he would bid 5C. It was also clear >> to North from his knowledge of fit that it would be bad bridge >> judgement to pass. > > Is it possible that 5C goes down based on AI? Is it possible that > 4S goes > down based on AI? When both answers are yes then Pass is a reasonable > action. Probability doesn't work like that. There may be a significant chance that 5C will go down, and a significant chance that 4S will go down, but no significant (or even zero) chance that both will. They are not independent events. > Are there possible inferences from a slow penalty double suggestive > that 4S is likely to make? I'm troubled by the presumption that North was aware of the "slow penalty double". How is he supposed to distinguish between a 30- second decision to double followed by an immediate pass and an immediate double followed by a 30-second decision not to redouble? The original writeup says, "The Director went to the other side of the screen, and it was clear West had bid directly." That suggests that it might well not have been at all clear to North, who didn't have the opportunity to "[go] to the other side of the screen". > If yes, then 5C is demonstrably suggested over > pass. > > The problem I have with Grattan?s assertion is that I have failed > to find > the passage within L16B that makes provision for mitigation of UI > via AI. > >> 4. The delay in returning the tray does not tell North >> anything that the auction does not tell him. > > Additionally, I am not inclined to concur. I fail to see why a > hand strong > enough to contract for nine tricks opposite a broke partner without > promise > of a fit will not be strong enough [even in spite of a possible > monster > fit** ] to defeat 4S on its own power when the hand so suggests by > double. > The meaning is that Double need not guarantee a ?much stronger hand > than 3H?. > the additional inference from the passage of time being tenuous > holdings for > the double and or an enviable anticipated playing strength of the > hand. Again, the fate of 4S and 5C are not independent. Passing is not an LA if it is clear (by the criteria specified in L16B) that the expected result in 5C will be better than the expected result in 4SX. Whether, in isolation, 4S is likely to make or go down isn't the right question. > apropos, last weekend my partner held Kxxxx-Kxxx-Tx-Jx opposite a > very > minimum 1S opening. the auction progressed to 5D upon which pard > forfeited > four defensive tricks by continuing to 5S after blasting to 4S. I confess I fail to see how this is apropos. The 5C call in question was North's first bid in the auction. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Jun 26 15:21:53 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:21:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4406819.1245915890860.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <200906261322.n5QDMFsC003549@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 04:32 PM 26/06/2009, you wrote: > >>+=+ In a long and toruous dissertation Richard eventually > > >Nice word Grattan! I must find an opportunity to use it > > > >Cheers, > > > >Tony (Sydney) > >Limited opportunities to use "toruous"; my tortuous mind >imitates Harry Potter by always spell checking. :-) :-) I believe the word means something like a torus, a doughnut shape with nothing in the middle, but which eventually connects back with itself, Tony From blml at arcor.de Fri Jun 26 15:35:35 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:35:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22882584.1246023335636.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > You, South, hold > > K43 > 72 > AJT85 > 932 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Richard Klavs > Hills Kalejs > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1NT(1) 2C (2) 2D (3) > Pass 2H Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 hcp, balanced > (2) 9-14 hcp, unspecified single-suiter (Cappelletti convention) > (3) Natural and non-forcing > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? If 1 NT can contain a five card major (either systematically or becyause partner is a joker), I assume that partner has five hearts, and I pass. I also consider the possibility that something went wrong (for example, partner might for some reason think we are playing transfers). If 1 NT cannot contain a five card major, I conclude that a wheel has come off, and I try to figure out what might have gone wrong. Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 26 15:40:55 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:40:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94B837EB-2EFE-4D96-AF82-300810405BEA@starpower.net> On Jun 25, 2009, at 9:22 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> It does seem a bit of a stretch to categorize knowing the identity >> of the thirteen cards you hold in your own hand as "information >> from...partner". > > Richard Hills: > > A very interesting point. Not relevant to the facts of the stem > case (where South knew she held thirteen cards which included three > keycards for diamonds, but originally believed that her 5S response > to Keycard Blackwood promised those three keycards until reminded > otherwise). > > Suppose that: > > (a) Your partnership plays disciplined Weak Two Bids, always six > card suits, never five nor seven. > > (b) You open 2H. > > (c) Your LHO asks partner about the meaning of your call. > > (c) Your partner, who holds eight hearts, is not a Laws expert, so > in addition to saying "5 to 9 hcp with 6 hearts" also says "but I > think my pard has made a mistake". > > (d) The comment from partner inspires you to re-examine your hand. > > (e) You initially believed that you held six hearts and one > diamond in your hand; you now discover that you hold one heart and > six diamonds. > > (f) So you have made a mistake; you should have opened a Weak 2D. > > Is correctly sorting your hand after a reminder Lawful or unLawful? That is what we're trying to decide via this thread. One possible answer, which IMO has intuitive appeal, is that it depends on whether the reminder itself is lawful or unlawful. I don't see a L16B1 violation here; whatever action I now take isn't suggested by the fact that I showed 5-9 HCP with six hearts, or by the fact that "I made a mistake" per se, but rather by the fact that I am holding six diamonds and one heart. That information was not "made available" by my partner, even though he may have prompted me make it available to myself. OTOH, my partner, in Richard's scenario, has blatantly violated L73B1 with his remark, so any damage it may have contributed to should not go unrectified. One could, then, since there is no specified rectification for violations of L73B1 per se, use one's L12A1 power to "rectify" the score by imposing constraints equivalent to those of L16B1 on the OS. Question: Does/should "also says 'but I think my pard has made a mistake'" make any difference to the legal analysis or resolution of Richard's scenario? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 26 16:21:41 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:21:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: References: <4A4360AE.2020302@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <11746B1C-B45B-4095-A6D4-47D17DF68ED1@starpower.net> On Jun 25, 2009, at 10:11 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:34:06 -0400, nige1 > wrote: > >> [Robert Frick] >> However, I rate this as hesitation as mostly unfathomable. I can >> think >> of three reasons why North was hesitating on the actual hand, and I >> wouldn't have thought of one of them while sitting South. The only >> reason I would have thought of for the hesitation was that we were >> missing two controls and partner was deciding what to do. That >> suggests >> passing rather than bidding on. Would I have had to bid on because >> bidding on was an LA? >> >> [Nigel] >> Robert, do you agree that even when unauthorised information from >> your >> partner is "unfathomable" to the director, in an experienced >> partnership >> you can often discern its import. >> >> Example: RHO opens 1D, you overcall 3C and LHO passes. After several >> minutes thought, your regular partner bids 4C. Your 3C was >> intended to >> show the majors (Ghestem) but during partner's hesitation, you >> remember >> that you recently agreed to use 3C as a weak jump overcall, >> instead. Had >> 3C been Ghestem, 4C would be a conventional slam try agreeing Hearts. >> Hence, you judge that bidding on would be mounting a roller- >> coaster to >> disaster. Do you think you can ethically pass, Robert? > > While I am thinking about this, what about my question? LHO opens 2D, > partner hesitates and eventually doubles, I wonder what partner > could have > been thinking about, and ask if 2D was natural. It turns out it is > not, > but I was thinking about the previous hand and did not here the > alert? Is > it an L16 violation if I now bid as if the 2D bid was not natural? > > Okay. Following a Ghestem bid, Partner is expected to bid 4C slowly > (because he has to evaluate his hand and recall the responses). > Thus it > does not convey any more information than an expected alert or correct > explanation of my bid. If I discover my error during this time, it > is a > case of me just waking up durng that time and everything is legal. True, but not directly responsive to Nigel's example, where the reminder of your methods came, presumably, not so much from partner's hesitation as from his unexpected failure to alert 3C. To reply fairly to Bob, we must pretend that Ghestem would not call for an alert. > Did you want to change it to a 4C bid in tempo? > > 4C bid in tempo suggests that partner has misunderstood my Ghestem > bid. > This suggests pass, and bidding on logically must be an LA. But I > realize > that I misbid. I think I just woke up, so I don't have any ethical > obligations to not use that information. The director won't be able to > tell whether I just woke up or used the lack of hesitation. If he > decides > I used the lack of hesitation, then.... Our entire approach to tempo issues is based on a necessary but false assumption, that only deviations from one's normal tempo may convey extraneous information. But, in general, if knowledge of A (tempo break) makes state X relatively more likely compared to state Y (call demonstrably suggested), then knowledge of not-A makes state Y relatively more likely compared to state X. Recognizing this in the law, however, would mean that every call on every hand was subject to L16B1, requiring a determination as to whether partner's failure to deviate from his normal tempo might have suggested one LA over another. There have been vague attempts to deal with this problem by distinguishing between "normal tempo" and "expected tempo"; ACBL precedent allows a finding that an obvious huddle may be deemed not to convey any extraneous information if the auction is sufficiently complex for such a huddle to be expected. But I know of no precedent for ruling that extraneous information was conveyed by a player calling in "normal tempo" when he would normally be "expected" to huddle. That way would lie madness. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 26 16:44:02 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:44:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <22882584.1246023335636.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> References: <22882584.1246023335636.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A44DEB2.5080205@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Imps >> Dlr: South >> Vul: North-South >> >> You, South, hold >> >> K43 >> 72 >> AJT85 >> 932 >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Richard Klavs >> Hills Kalejs >> --- --- --- Pass >> Pass 1NT(1) 2C (2) 2D (3) >> Pass 2H Pass ? >> >> (1) 12-14 hcp, balanced >> (2) 9-14 hcp, unspecified single-suiter (Cappelletti convention) >> (3) Natural and non-forcing >> >> What call do you make? >> What other calls do you consider making? >> > > If 1 NT can contain a five card major (either systematically > or becyause partner is a joker), I assume > that partner has five hearts, and I pass. > I also consider the possibility that something went wrong > (for example, partner might for some reason think we are > playing transfers). > > If 1 NT cannot contain a five card major, > I conclude that a wheel has come off, and I try to figure > out what might have gone wrong. > > AG : if 1NT cannot contain a 5-card major, I take parter's bid at face value, that is, exceptional value for diamonds with strength in hearts (or weakness, if we also use that when non-completing transfers). I then bid either 2S or 3D. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 26 16:49:54 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:49:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3A8A3581-3E29-434D-B432-3A70B89BDFB5@starpower.net> On Jun 25, 2009, at 8:30 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > You, South, hold > > K43 > 72 > AJT85 > 932 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Richard Klavs > Hills Kalejs > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1NT(1) 2C (2) 2D (3) > Pass 2H Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 hcp, balanced > (2) 9-14 hcp, unspecified single-suiter (Cappelletti convention) > (3) Natural and non-forcing > > What call do you make? 3D. 2H should show an exceptional hand for diamonds, seeking a secondary fit in hearts. I don't have enough to be interested, so I sign off in 3D. If partner thought I was transferring, I have (in my usual strong-NT methods) just forced to game, but I've had zeroes before. > What other calls do you consider making? 2S and pass. But only with a partner who, for lack of experience or confidence, would IMO never bid over 2D no matter how good his hand, leaving me to assume that after opening 1NT he discovered either some extra HCP or some extra hearts he originally took for diamonds, and to guess which. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 26 17:39:52 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:39:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: <476138.1246002262333.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> References: <476138.1246002262333.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <80F0B78F-B170-401B-80AB-5F84F7AD0B4F@starpower.net> On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Eric Landau: >> >>> It does seem a bit of a stretch to categorize knowing the identity >>> of the thirteen cards you hold in your own hand as "information >>> from...partner". >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> A very interesting point. Not relevant to the facts of the stem >> case (where South knew she held thirteen cards which included three >> keycards for diamonds, but originally believed that her 5S response >> to Keycard Blackwood promised those three keycards until reminded >> otherwise). >> >> Suppose that: >> >> (a) Your partnership plays disciplined Weak Two Bids, always six >> card suits, never five nor seven. >> >> (b) You open 2H. >> >> (c) Your LHO asks partner about the meaning of your call. >> >> (c) Your partner, who holds eight hearts, is not a Laws expert, so >> in addition to saying "5 to 9 hcp with 6 hearts" also says "but I >> think my pard has made a mistake". >> >> (d) The comment from partner inspires you to re-examine your hand. >> >> (e) You initially believed that you held six hearts and one >> diamond in your hand; you now discover that you hold one heart and >> six diamonds. >> >> (f) So you have made a mistake; you should have opened a Weak 2D. >> >> Is correctly sorting your hand after a reminder Lawful or unLawful? > > Partner's comment clearly is UI. While the player holds those 13 > cards, > the UI is very strong, and it is also evident that the player was not > aware of the AI (holding six diamonds rather than six hearts) when > he opened > the weak two. > > I will thus rule that "waking up" during the bidding is not > allowed; he must > continue bidding as if he held six hearts. (Myself, I have done > that in the past, and it > leads to some fun auctions and very fancy final contracts). > > But I doubt whether I can also force him to revoke > on the second round of diamonds if their side ends up defending. But if you find a violation of L16B1, shouldn't you? The fact that you do not have six hearts is either extraneous information made available to you by your partner that suggests a call *or play* or it isn't. If you determine that it is, L16 has nothng to suggest that your finding "expires" at some arbitrary point during the hand. Even if that point is set as the start of play (for EI conveyed during the auction -- or should that be the "auction period"? and what about the "clarification period"?) it is entirely arbitrary. If the opponents "expose your psyche" of 2H and proceed to have a strong auction to 6H, would Thomas really require a double on the grounds that you must continue to bid as though holding six hearts? And then, somehow, nevertheless allow you to "wake up" before it is your turn to act again (at trick one)? If you permit a finding that the knowledge of the cards you hold in your hand may be deemed to be extraneous information made available by your partner, then L16B1 applies, and you may not negate its applicability at some subsequent point during the deal just because it feels like the right time to do so. As I previously suggested, however, we need not agree that "partner's comment is clearly UI" to agree that it is nevertheless a clear violation of L73B1, which we can rectify per L12A1, which would allow Thomas to select as the appropriate indemnity the imposition of L16B1- like constraints on the OS for the duration of the auction only, as he would like to. That's totally different from actually applying L16B; it is rectifying not just a different infraction, but an infraction by a different offender. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 26 17:54:00 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:54:00 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 Message-ID: <14625360.1246031640762.JavaMail.root@ps38> >----Original Message---- >From: ehaa at starpower.net >Date: 26/06/2009 15:21 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 > I know of no precedent for ruling that extraneous information was conveyed by a player calling in "normal tempo" when he would normally be "expected" to huddle. That way would lie madness. +=+ And no doubt despatch of sundry TDs to mental institutions. Lawmakers too, probably. ~ G ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 26 18:49:32 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:49:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [Bulk] Re: Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: <4A44A60E.80508@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4A4360AE.2020302@yahoo.co.uk> <4A44A60E.80508@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <5A75F3D2-7FC0-486A-A1CD-80B86AEAEA31@starpower.net> On Jun 26, 2009, at 6:42 AM, nige1 wrote: > If you "wake up" to your mistake, bid accordingly, and the director > deems the latter to be a likely explanation, then I think that the > director should consider an adverse ruling. > > The director rules on the balance of probability, so he will sometimes > rule wrongly, in such cases :( > > In a regular partnership, you are better equipped to detect the reason > for partner's hesitation than are the director or your opponents. You > should strive to avoid a suggested call if there is a logical > alternative. That may well be true, but the law does not permit us to take it into account when adjudicating UI cases: "...may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could *demonstrably* have been suggested..." [L16B1(a), emphasis mine]. That's because if you are allowed to presume that the hesitator's partner is "better equipped to detect the reason" he will be "forked" in two-way positions where no "demonstrable suggestion" is obvious; faced with two LAs (the classic example is 1S-P-2S-P-3S-P-?, pass or 4S), he will automatically receive the score for the worse of the results that would follow from either choice, regardless of which he actually chooses. Absent some prior infraction earlier in the auction, you cannot put a player in a position where he cannot avoid committing a redressable infraction no matter what he does. I feel like I'm treading on well-trod ground here. Isn't this long settled? > In practice, however, it is easy to convince yourself that you reached > the correct conclusion, by other means; and it is often hard for > opponents or the director to guess what has happened. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Fri Jun 26 19:24:00 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:24:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A44DEB2.5080205@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A44DEB2.5080205@ulb.ac.be> <22882584.1246023335636.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <28584292.1246037040472.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >> Imps > >> Dlr: South > >> Vul: North-South > >> > >> You, South, hold > >> > >> K43 > >> 72 > >> AJT85 > >> 932 > >> > >> The bidding has gone: > >> > >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >> Richard Klavs > >> Hills Kalejs > >> --- --- --- Pass > >> Pass 1NT(1) 2C (2) 2D (3) > >> Pass 2H Pass ? > >> > >> (1) 12-14 hcp, balanced > >> (2) 9-14 hcp, unspecified single-suiter (Cappelletti convention) > >> (3) Natural and non-forcing > >> > >> What call do you make? > >> What other calls do you consider making? > >> > > > > If 1 NT can contain a five card major (either systematically > > or becyause partner is a joker), I assume > > that partner has five hearts, and I pass. > > I also consider the possibility that something went wrong > > (for example, partner might for some reason think we are > > playing transfers). > > > > If 1 NT cannot contain a five card major, > > I conclude that a wheel has come off, and I try to figure > > out what might have gone wrong. > > > > > AG : if 1NT cannot contain a 5-card major, I take parter's bid at face > value, that is, exceptional value for diamonds with strength in hearts > (or weakness, if we also use that when non-completing transfers). > I then bid either 2S or 3D. With a weak NT over a sign-off 2D? Really? Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From blml at arcor.de Fri Jun 26 20:17:51 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:17:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: <80F0B78F-B170-401B-80AB-5F84F7AD0B4F@starpower.net> References: <80F0B78F-B170-401B-80AB-5F84F7AD0B4F@starpower.net> <476138.1246002262333.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <15996005.1246040271919.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >> Eric Landau: > >> > >>> It does seem a bit of a stretch to categorize knowing the identity > >>> of the thirteen cards you hold in your own hand as "information > >>> from...partner". > >> > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> A very interesting point. Not relevant to the facts of the stem > >> case (where South knew she held thirteen cards which included three > >> keycards for diamonds, but originally believed that her 5S response > >> to Keycard Blackwood promised those three keycards until reminded > >> otherwise). > >> > >> Suppose that: > >> > >> (a) Your partnership plays disciplined Weak Two Bids, always six > >> card suits, never five nor seven. > >> > >> (b) You open 2H. > >> > >> (c) Your LHO asks partner about the meaning of your call. > >> > >> (c) Your partner, who holds eight hearts, is not a Laws expert, so > >> in addition to saying "5 to 9 hcp with 6 hearts" also says "but I > >> think my pard has made a mistake". > >> > >> (d) The comment from partner inspires you to re-examine your hand. > >> > >> (e) You initially believed that you held six hearts and one > >> diamond in your hand; you now discover that you hold one heart and > >> six diamonds. > >> > >> (f) So you have made a mistake; you should have opened a Weak 2D. > >> > >> Is correctly sorting your hand after a reminder Lawful or unLawful? > > > > Partner's comment clearly is UI. While the player holds those 13 > > cards, > > the UI is very strong, and it is also evident that the player was not > > aware of the AI (holding six diamonds rather than six hearts) when > > he opened > > the weak two. > > > > I will thus rule that "waking up" during the bidding is not > > allowed; he must > > continue bidding as if he held six hearts. (Myself, I have done > > that in the past, and it > > leads to some fun auctions and very fancy final contracts). > > > > But I doubt whether I can also force him to revoke > > on the second round of diamonds if their side ends up defending. > > But if you find a violation of L16B1, shouldn't you? The fact that > you do not have six hearts is either extraneous information made > available to you by your partner that suggests a call *or play* or it > isn't. Yes. > If you determine that it is, L16 has nothng to suggest that > your finding "expires" at some arbitrary point during the hand. Even > if that point is set as the start of play (for EI conveyed during the > auction -- or should that be the "auction period"? and what about the > "clarification period"?) it is entirely arbitrary. If the opponents > "expose your psyche" of 2H and proceed to have a strong auction to > 6H, would Thomas really require a double on the grounds that you must > continue to bid as though holding six hearts? And then, somehow, > nevertheless allow you to "wake up" before it is your turn to act > again (at trick one)? How often have you seen it that somebody opens 2H with diamonds, or 2H with hearts, or similar extreme sorting mishaps? Happens once in a while. How often have you seen that person later on, when defending or declaring, revoke? I deem that very rare, at the very latest, those players notice when they first actually play one of those hearts. Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 26 20:14:25 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:14:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: <11746B1C-B45B-4095-A6D4-47D17DF68ED1@starpower.net> References: <4A4360AE.2020302@yahoo.co.uk> <11746B1C-B45B-4095-A6D4-47D17DF68ED1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A451001.2040308@yahoo.co.uk> [Eric Landau] True, but not directly responsive to Nigel's example, where the reminder of your methods came, presumably, not so much from partner's hesitation as from his unexpected failure to alert 3C. To reply fairly to Bob, we must pretend that Ghestem would not call for an alert. [Nigel] Alternatively, you may assume that screens are in use; or that both weak jump overcalls and Ghestem are alertable. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 26 20:36:25 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (nige1) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:36:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: <5A75F3D2-7FC0-486A-A1CD-80B86AEAEA31@starpower.net> References: <4A4360AE.2020302@yahoo.co.uk> <4A44A60E.80508@yahoo.co.uk> <5A75F3D2-7FC0-486A-A1CD-80B86AEAEA31@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A451529.7090601@yahoo.co.uk> [Eric Landau] That may well be true, but the law does not permit us to take it into account when adjudicating UI cases: "...may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could *demonstrably* have been suggested..." [L16B1(a), emphasis mine]. That's because if you are allowed to presume that the hesitator's partner is "better equipped to detect the reason" he will be "forked" in two-way positions where no "demonstrable suggestion" is obvious; faced with two LAs (the classic example is 1S-P-2S-P-3S-P-?, pass or 4S), he will automatically receive the score for the worse of the results that would follow from either choice, regardless of which he actually chooses. Absent some prior infraction earlier in the auction, you cannot put a player in a position where he cannot avoid committing a redressable infraction no matter what he does. I feel like I'm treading on well-trod ground here. Isn't this long settled? [Nigel] I was arguing that a *player* should avoid an action, suggested by unauthorised information from partner, if there is a logical alternative -- even when the director is unlikely to work out what has happened. No dispute as to how the *director* should rule, under current law. I previously suggested that, when polling peers of the player, the director should show them only the player's hand and ask *two* questions [A] What are the logical alternatives, in this context. [B] Which alternatives did the unauthorised information suggest. Unless the director asks the second question, the player may end up impaled on Landau's fork :( From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 26 22:22:45 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:22:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [Bulk] Re: Houston non-NABC case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A44A60E.80508@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4A4360AE.2020302@yahoo.co.uk> <4A44A60E.80508@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:42:22 -0400, nige1 wrote: > [Robert Frick] > While I am thinking about this, what about my question? LHO opens 2D, > partner hesitates and eventually doubles, I wonder what partner could > have been thinking about, and ask if 2D was natural. It turns out it is > not, but I was thinking about the previous hand and did not here the > alert? Is it an L16 violation if I now bid as if the 2D bid was not > natural? > > Okay. Following a Ghestem bid, Partner is expected to bid 4C slowly > (because he has to evaluate his hand and recall the responses). Thus it > does not convey any more information than an expected alert or correct > explanation of my bid. If I discover my error during this time, it is a > case of me just waking up durng that time and everything is legal. > > Did you want to change it to a 4C bid in tempo? > > 4C bid in tempo suggests that partner has misunderstood my Ghestem bid. > This suggests pass, and bidding on logically must be an LA. But I realize > that I misbid. I think I just woke up, so I don't have any ethical > obligations to not use that information. The director won't be able to > tell whether I just woke up or used the lack of hesitation. If he decides > I used the lack of hesitation, then.... > > it depends on how you answered my question. > > [Nigel] > IMO: > - Its OK to let partner's hesitation affect your choice of call, if > partner's hesitation simply gives you *extra time* to formulate a better > judgement. > - The problem arises when you discern the *cause* of partner's > hesitation -- and that is some pertinent fact of which you might > otherwise have been unaware. > > Attempting to apply these principles to our two examples: > > [A] If partner's hesitation over LHO's 2D simply gave you extra time to > find out that 2D was alerted, then you are free to use that information. > IMO, the director is likely to agree with that assessment. > > [B] When you bid 3C, intended as Ghestem, and partner goes into the tank > for several minutes before bidding 4C, it is true that he might just be > deciding if he's worth a slam try; but, if such a long hesitation is > uncharacteristic of partner in a simple Ghestem auction, then an > alternative explanation is that he knows that your partnership have > recently changed to natural jump overcalls and he is worried that you > have forgotten -- because LHO passed and he has a lot of clubs. > > If you "wake up" to your mistake, bid accordingly, and the director > deems the latter to be a likely explanation, then I think that the > director should consider an adverse ruling. > > The director rules on the balance of probability, so he will sometimes > rule wrongly, in such cases :( > > In a regular partnership, you are better equipped to detect the reason > for partner's hesitation than are the director or your opponents. You > should strive to avoid a suggested call if there is a logical > alternative. > > In practice, however, it is easy to convince yourself that you reached > the correct conclusion, by other means; and it is often hard for > opponents or the director to guess what has happened. We are agreeing on too many things for me to list; answers on rec.games.bridge so far are consistent with L16B applying for the use of any UI from a hesitation. The problem then becomes if any hesitation is ever a useful enough clue to trigger L16B. In general, I think the answer is no -- partner's hesitation is very rarely caused by my misbid, and my misbids are almost as likely to yield no hesitation. Can we find specific circumstances where a hesitation more strongly suggests misbid? Yes, but not by much. In your example, I did not see how a hesitation by partner could suggest my misbid, but I did see how a lack of hesitation might suggest my misbid. Examples are easy for an unintended bid -- 1H - 2H - 3H - 4S, partner hesitates, and I realize I mispulled and meant to bid 4H. Supposedly I cannot correct to 4H now without using UI. If something as strong as this came up for a misbid, I can see applying L16B. In the presenting problem, there are numerous reasons why partner could be hesitating (thinking of bidding 6D missing two controls; thinking of bidding 5NT; thinking of whether to place the contract in 6D versus 6NT versus 7D, not to mention the unfathomable 6S). So partner's hesitation could be caused by the misbid, but it does not suggest a misbid. From adam at tameware.com Sat Jun 27 01:18:37 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:18:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? Message-ID: <694eadd40906261618o70956efh9607bd66e3c36a5@mail.gmail.com> This came up on our ACBL Laws Commission mailing list. Has it been discussed on BLML? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Peter Boyd Date: Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:07 PM Subject: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? 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. (This has actually happened.) Regards, ? -- Peter From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jun 27 06:09:28 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:09:28 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <694eadd40906261618o70956efh9607bd66e3c36a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <773C97E4DEAC4BF3A124E3A07BAA7948@MARVLAPTOP> 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 Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From blml at arcor.de Sat Jun 27 08:20:21 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:20:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? Message-ID: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> 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). Thomas Jetzt klicken und gucken! Das Arcor.de Fotoalbum mit tausenden von ?ffentlich einsehbaren Privatfotos! Wir empfehlen die Kategorie Singles! http://www.arcor.de/rd/palb From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 27 10:30:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:30:16 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 Message-ID: <13521626.1246091416574.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk >Date: 26/06/2009 19:36 No dispute as to how the *director* should rule, under current law. I >previously suggested that, when polling peers of the player, the >director should show them only the player's hand and ask *two* questions >[A] What are the logical alternatives, in this context. >[B] Which alternatives did the unauthorised information suggest. << +=+ Question B is set in terms that lead the responder. It were better to ask "Does the UI suggest one (or any) of these?" UI does not necessarily suggest a choice; the questioner should avoid implying that it does. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 27 12:51:24 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:51:24 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Adam's ambiguity. Message-ID: <28977117.1246099884468.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> I mentioned the subject to Max Bavin. His reply, with which I entirely agree, is: "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 (and in the example given it seems likely that it did), 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 ~ Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________ From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jun 27 21:10:41 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:10:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling In-Reply-To: <200906122226.n5CMQP6i017673@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200906122226.n5CMQP6i017673@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A466EB1.1020707@nhcc.net> > From: "Marvin L French" > The Marvin convention is more efficient, IMO. Unlike DONT, which is > restricted to higher-level ACBL games, DONT is GCC-legal or at least was for a long time. Has that changed? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jun 27 21:05:32 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:05:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling In-Reply-To: <4A466EB1.1020707@nhcc.net> References: <200906122226.n5CMQP6i017673@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A466EB1.1020707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <57DEBA1B0BE645F78B8FC721F016D115@erdos> >From: "Steve Willner" >To: >Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:10 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling >> From: "Marvin L French" >> The Marvin convention is more efficient, IMO. Unlike DONT, which is >> restricted to higher-level ACBL games, > > DONT is GCC-legal or at least was for a long time. Has that changed? DONT is GCC-legal; some other popular defenses are not. The GCC rule is that calls other than double and 2C must show a known suit; thus defenses in which 2D shows an unknown major are disallowed under the GCC, but in DONT, double is the only call with no known suit. From bobpark at consolidated.net Sat Jun 27 23:10:26 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:10:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Displaying cards after claim or concession (2018) In-Reply-To: <879332.72543.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <000601c9ec45$eb330de0$c19929a0$@no> <000701c9ec5c$7648d200$62da7600$@no> <879332.72543.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A468AC2.5000807@consolidated.net> Ted Ying wrote: > I often have a time problem with players who are > average pace or slower who do a number of things that take up time > and are unnecessary. This includes writing the score in their private > card before making an opening lead. > -Ted Ying. > Please show us where the laws or regulations require one to lead before writing down the contract. I am of the opinion that the opening leader deserves as much time as anyone else in the play of the hand...and for observing the plays of others at the table, including the mannerisms of the opponents. Why do you think opening leader deserves less? --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090627/fa53ddd4/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jun 27 23:29:18 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:29:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hedge potato ruling In-Reply-To: <57DEBA1B0BE645F78B8FC721F016D115@erdos> References: <200906122226.n5CMQP6i017673@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A466EB1.1020707@nhcc.net> <57DEBA1B0BE645F78B8FC721F016D115@erdos> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0906271429i137c32eagf022f92816ff0339@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:05 PM, David Grabiner < grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > > > DONT is GCC-legal; some other popular defenses are not. The GCC rule is > that > calls other than double and 2C must show a known suit; thus defenses in > which 2D > shows an unknown major are disallowed under the GCC, but in DONT, double is > the > only call with no known suit. > > This statement is correct about basic DONT (up to two spades) by GCC rule Competitive-7b, but the NT calls directly over their 1NT opening are interesting. I believe that a strong, no-sure-suit 2-or-higher NT is allowed, it they are natural, and overcalls of 4NT or higher can be two-suited with no known suit, by GCC rule Competitive-3b. See http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Convention-Chart.pdf. And in balancing seat, I think the correct characterization is that any constructive defense is allowed, by Competitive-1 and Disallowed-1. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090627/6570206b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 29 00:38:56 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:38:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Claim jumping [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills, Houston non-NABC case 1 thread: [snip] >>Is correctly sorting your hand after a reminder Lawful or unLawful? Eric Landau, Houston non-NABC case 1 thread: >That is what we're trying to decide via this thread. One possible >answer, which IMO has intuitive appeal, is that it depends on >whether the reminder itself is lawful or unlawful. [snip] Richard Hills, jumping to an old claim thread: Suppose one claims on the basis of mis-sorted cards, an opponent Lawfully objects, and with correctly sorted cards one still makes one's contract on the only normal* line? See attached. 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 Old (1997 Lawbook) claim thread "The Red Queen's Race": Herman De Wael: Great story, Richard, and beautifully told. I would like to submit this for the annual David Burn BLML literary award, for which DB himself is of course ineligible because of fairness to others. Richard Hills: >Imps >Dlr E 3 >Vul NS 7 > AJ862 > AT9862 > Me >K JT65 >AQT982 653 >KT4 973 >KJ7 Q54 > M.L.L.A.I.* > AQ98742 > KQJ4 > 5 > 3 > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >--- --- --- Pass >1S 2H 3C Pass >3S Pass 4D Pass >4S Pass Pass Pass > >The play was truncated: Ace of hearts; King of spades switch to >the Ace; Queen of spades cashed. > >After that trick, declarer laid his hand on the table, noting >that the only remaining tricks he would lose were to my JT of >trumps. Herman De Wael: This is a perfectly logical claim given the hand that he thinks he holds. I find this a particularly important part of the ruling. We should not rule against this declarer for the enormous error of a faulty claim, but for the small error of a missorting. Not that the player should get off the hook, but a little sympathy is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, Law 70 speaks of equity. Richard Hills: >Declarer is one of the two best players in Canberra, and for him >Most Losing Lines Are Irrational. Even so, I decided to summon the >TD, since I had noticed that the pip on declarer's Queen of hearts >was a little bit too pointy. > >The TD unimaginatively ruled that 4S was now two off, giving us the >additional tricks of the King of diamonds and the Queen of hearts. Herman De Wael: Well, L70 also speaks of doubtful points. Doubtful to me is the fact that declarer would notice the heart being a diamond before touching it. So I would rule as "what would happen if declarer does not notice until playing the queen of hearts, but before actually tabling the queen of diamonds". I conclude that there are 4 possible lines : -playing trumps (but I'd rather think it unlikely - it's not natural since it more often than not does not work - here it does but it's contrary to nature to go looking if a line that not often works does in this case, when other lines always work) -playing diamonds to the ace, losing all chances of recovery (if my analysis is correct) -playing clubs (losing the chance of recovery, yes ?) -playing the heart king, then queen - oops. In the fourth line there is now a recovery point: since it's imps, the chance has to be taken, and it works. I believe this is a case where Antonio's proposed law change would be applicable, so under the 2007 laws I rule 33% made, 67% -2. Under the 1997 laws it's -2 I'm afraid. Richard Hills: >However, as TD, I would have ruled differently. > >Firstly, I would rule that it would be irrational for M.L.L.A.I. to >mis-sort his cards. The fact that he had actually mis-sorted his >cards I would rule irrelevant. Herman De Wael: :-) Richard Hills: >This follows the Maastricht precedent where it was ruled irrelevant >to the claim on a double squeeze, the inconvenient fact that >declarer had actually mistimed his double squeeze. Herman De Wael: I'm sure Richard realises the difference. In his case the actual mistake came before the claim, in Maastricht it came afterwards. Richard Hills: >Secondly, I would rule that it would be irrational for declarer to >fail in 4S by not taking the diamond finesse, ruffing out the >diamonds, crossing to the Ace of clubs, and discarding the losing >Jack of hearts on a good diamond. > >The fact that M.L.L.A.I. had not stated this only logical line of >play in his claim was irrelevant, since given his class of player, >he is never required to make a complete and comprehensive claim >statement. Herman De Wael: Here you are wrong, Richard. We have an explanation why he did not give this complete statement. So we can exonerate him from this. Only when he is looking at the DQ, and he fails to give a complete statement, can we hold this against him. I would probably concur with your analysis that this player is good enough to consider that other lines are irrational. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 29 01:36:19 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:36:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <28584292.1246037040472.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>AG : if 1NT cannot contain a 5-card major, I take partner's bid at >>face value, that is, exceptional value for diamonds with strength in >>hearts (or weakness, if we also use that when non-completing >>transfers). >> >>I then bid either 2S or 3D. Thomas Dehn: >With a weak NT over a sign-off 2D? Really? Richard Hills: If RHO had not bid, a natural and non-forcing 2D response to a weak NT could be made on a yarborough, hence a 2H rebid would be anomalous. But with RHO intervening with an artificial 2C, South would pass with a yarborough, so a natural and non-forcing 2D promises some values, hence it is safe for the NT opener to force to the three level with a good fit. For example, to avoid rebid problems, the NT opener may have chosen to open 1NT (instead of the systemic 1D) with a 2-4-5-2 shape, and is now making a long-suit trial in hearts due to the exceptional 5-5 or better diamond fit. Of course, the above is what South is required to assume once North's "unexpected* alert" gives South UI about his actual agreement of his 2D being a transfer to hearts. Thomas Dehn: >If 1 NT cannot contain a five card major, I conclude that a wheel has >come off, and I try to figure out what might have gone wrong. Richard Hills: Many players who get and use UI from partner awakening them to the true nature of their partnership agreements state, "It was obvious from the auction that I had misbid," but in most cases an alternative theory of partner improvising a call (in this case an improvised long-suit trial bid by North, which is consistent with the frequent use of long-suit trials and fit-showing jumps by North-South in other auctions) is also possible. 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 Jun 29 02:06:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:06:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Demon's table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie noted: >>In a regular partnership, you are better equipped to detect the >>reason for partner's hesitation than are the director or your >>opponents. You should strive to avoid a suggested call if there is a >>logical alternative. Richard Hills concurs: Agreed. Eric Landau curate's egg: >That may well be true, but the law does not permit us to take it into >account when adjudicating UI cases: "...may not choose from among >logical alternatives one that could *demonstrably* have been >suggested..." [L16B1(a), emphasis mine]. > >That's because if you are allowed to presume that the hesitator's >partner is "better equipped to detect the reason" he will be "forked" >in two-way positions where no "demonstrable suggestion" is obvious; >faced with two LAs (the classic example is 1S-P-2S-P-3S-P-?, pass or >4S), he will automatically receive the score for the worse of the >results that would follow from either choice, regardless of which he >actually chooses. Absent some prior infraction earlier in the >auction, you cannot put a player in a position where he cannot avoid >committing a redressable infraction no matter what he does. > >I feel like I'm treading on well-trod ground here. Isn't this long >settled? Richard Hills quibbles: Yes, it is settled (after receiving UI from pard) that at least one logical alternative must be a Lawful logical alternative. No, it is not settled that "demonstrable" means "demonstrable to the Director". Yes, there is an emerging consensus that "demonstrable" means instead "demonstrable to the class of player". Adam Wildavsky, comment on Houston non-NABC case 8: >>>I agree that the appeal had merit - it's not clear to me what the >>>BIT suggests. Kudos to the panel for asking exactly that in their >>>second poll. Houston non-NABC case 8 writeup: The Appeal .....Five peers were asked what the BIT meant? Two thought the BIT showed only 5 spades. Two said it showed indecision between 3NT and 4S. One thought partner had made the wrong bid (maybe hearts) and couldn't figure out how to recover. The Decision In light of the polling, the panel determined that this North clearly thought the BIT suggested extra strength (i.e. demonstrably suggested bidding on)..... 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 Jun 29 02:55:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:55:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Demon's table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>Yes, there is an emerging consensus that "demonstrable" means >>>instead "demonstrable to the class of player". Eric Landau: >>I know of no precedent for ruling that extraneous information >>was conveyed by a player calling in "normal tempo" when he >>would normally be "expected" to huddle. That way would lie >>madness. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ And no doubt despatch of sundry TDs to mental institutions. >Lawmakers too, probably. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Opener Responder 2NT 3NT (normal tempo) Pass Director summoned, both the TD and AC adjusted the score. True story from an Aussie National some years ago. Madness? No, the partnership had recently and foolishly agreed that a 3NT response would be artificial, promising 5 spades and 4 hearts. The responder was a thoughtful chap who very frequently huddled, but did not do so in this case. Ergo, the celerity of the 3NT demonstrably suggested that the responder had forgotten the new agreement, so the opener elected the demonstrably suggested Pass for +630 rather than the logical alternative of 4S for -300. 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 swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jun 29 04:04:33 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:04:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: <200906262130.n5QLUFkI002825@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200906262130.n5QLUFkI002825@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A482131.3060209@nhcc.net> >> (e) You initially believed that you held six hearts and one >> diamond in your hand; you now discover that you hold one heart and >> six diamonds. > From: Eric Landau > ...it depends on whether > the reminder itself is lawful or unlawful. This seems exactly right to me. Trying to use L16 in every case is silly; there are plenty of other Laws in the book. > OTOH, my partner, in Richard's scenario, has blatantly violated L73B1 > with his remark, ... use one's L12A1 power Indeed. > Question: Does/should "also says 'but I think my pard has made a > mistake'" make any difference to the legal analysis or resolution of > Richard's scenario? Of course. If partner has done nothing at all wrong -- alerting and answering questions with no gratuitous information -- there is no infraction and no reason for a score adjustment. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jun 29 04:08:30 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:08:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] EUC2009. Appeal 14 In-Reply-To: <200906251754.n5PHsHvW012365@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200906251754.n5PHsHvW012365@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A48221E.5010201@nhcc.net> > From: "grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk" > 1. There was no doubt > in the committee ... that pass was a logical alternative. but > It was also clear > to North from his knowledge of fit that it would be bad bridge > judgement to pass. Does anybody besides me find these contradictory? From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jun 29 03:40:26 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:40:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Demon's table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0906281840t45082952n95d5f128595280f9@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:55 PM, wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > Opener ? ? Responder > 2NT ? ? ? ?3NT (normal tempo) > Pass > > Director summoned, both the TD and AC adjusted the score. ?True > story from an Aussie National some years ago. > > Madness? > > No, the partnership had recently and foolishly agreed that a 3NT > response would be artificial, promising 5 spades and 4 hearts. > > The responder was a thoughtful chap who very frequently huddled, > but did not do so in this case. ?Ergo, the celerity of the 3NT > demonstrably suggested that the responder had forgotten the new > agreement, so the opener elected the demonstrably suggested Pass > for +630 rather than the logical alternative of 4S for -300. > How did the defending side know about the recent and foolish agreement? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jun 29 03:46:50 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:46:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Demon's table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills writes: > > Opener Responder > 2NT 3NT (normal tempo) > Pass > > Director summoned, both the TD and AC adjusted the score. True > story from an Aussie National some years ago. > > Madness? > > No, the partnership had recently and foolishly agreed that a 3NT > response would be artificial, promising 5 spades and 4 hearts. > > The responder was a thoughtful chap who very frequently huddled, > but did not do so in this case. Ergo, the celerity of the 3NT > demonstrably suggested that the responder had forgotten the new > agreement, so the opener elected the demonstrably suggested Pass > for +630 rather than the logical alternative of 4S for -300. This looks like an application of the Rule of Coincidence, with the normal tempo creating a theoretical case that UI was passed. A Rule of Coincidence ruling makes more sense assuming that the rule is allowed; I don't know whether Australia recognizes the rule. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 29 03:46:26 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40137.99.7.154.104.1246239986.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > Richard Hills: > > Many players who get and use UI from partner awakening them to the true > nature of their partnership agreements state, "It was obvious from the > auction that I had misbid," but in most cases an alternative theory of > partner improvising a call (in this case an improvised long-suit trial > bid by North, which is consistent with the frequent use of long-suit > trials and fit-showing jumps by North-South in other auctions) is also > possible. > I agree, but I have also decided that the weaker players where I direct in general are better at correcting misunderstandings. For one, they don't play that 2H implies a diamond fit, or probably that 3D shows a second suit. Basically, they haven't worked out these fancy meanings, and they probably aren't worth playing because partner will forget or misunderstand. Add in the increases probability of a misunderstanding, and an unexpected response suggests a misunderstanding. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 29 04:18:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:18:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] voke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >>>I will thus rule that "waking up" during the bidding is not >>>allowed; he must continue bidding as if he held six hearts. >>>(Myself, I have done that in the past, and it leads to some >>>fun auctions and very fancy final contracts). >>> >>>But I doubt whether I can also force him to revoke on the >>>second round of diamonds if their side ends up defending. Eric Landau: >>But if you find a violation of L16B1, shouldn't you? The >>fact that you do not have six hearts is either extraneous >>information made available to you by your partner that >>suggests a call *or play* or it isn't. Thomas Dehn: >Yes. Eric Landau: >>If you determine that it is, L16 has nothing to suggest that >>your finding "expires" at some arbitrary point during the >>hand. Thomas Dehn: >How often have you seen it that somebody opens 2H with >diamonds, or 2D with hearts, or similar extreme sorting >mishaps? Happens once in a while. > >How often have you seen that person later on, when defending >or declaring, revoke? I deem that very rare, Richard Hills: I disagree. A former bridge player (let us call him Peter, for that was his name) was paranoid about peekers, so chose to frustrate them by never sorting his hand, instead leaving his cards in random order. But consequently he revoked much more frequently than other local experts, so the local sobriquet for a revoke was a "Peter Coup". So "logically", if UI prevents you re-sorting your hand during the bidding, only AI can permit your re-sort during the play to avoid a consequent revoke, for example AI under Law 61B1: "Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led." Richard Hills: But "logic" is a frail reed. Much stronger is RTFLB. Consequently, the tortuous conclusion I reach is that you must not knowingly revoke, even if your necessary knowledge has arrived via UI from your partner, because RTFLB finds -> 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." 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 Jun 29 06:21:42 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:21:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Demon's table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, what's the problem?: >>Yes, there is an emerging consensus that "demonstrable" means >>instead "demonstrable to the class of player". [snip] >>Opener Responder >>2NT 3NT (normal tempo) >>Pass >> >>Director summoned, both the TD and AC adjusted the score. True >>story from an Aussie National some years ago. >> >>Madness? >> >>No, the partnership had recently and foolishly agreed that a 3NT >>response would be artificial, promising 5 spades and 4 hearts. >> >>The responder was a thoughtful chap who very frequently huddled, >>but did not do so in this case. Ergo, the celerity of the 3NT >>demonstrably suggested that the responder had forgotten the new >>agreement, so the opener elected the demonstrably suggested Pass >>for +630 rather than the logical alternative of 4S for -300. >> >>What's the problem? David Grabiner, problem is what?: >This looks like an application of the Rule of Coincidence, with >the normal tempo creating a theoretical case that UI was passed. >A Rule of Coincidence ruling makes more sense assuming that the >rule is allowed; I don't know whether Australia recognizes the >rule. Richard Hills, poster of trick questions?: My writing of "(normal tempo)" was misleading, contradicted by my later writing of "responder was a thoughtful chap who very frequently huddled". Ergo, while responder's tempo in bidding 3NT would have conveyed zero information if responder had been a normal player, for this responder's unusually slow "class of player" this responder "demonstrably" broke tempo by bidding 3NT unusually quickly. Thus nothing to do with the Rule of Coincidence, merely a standard Law 73C "haste" which imposed upon this opener the standard Law 73C requirement to "carefully avoid taking any advantage". ACBLer Jerry Fusselman: >How did the defending side know about the recent and foolish >agreement? ABFer Richard Hills: The declaring side voluntarily told them. In a book written by ACBLer (and World Champion) Mike Lawrence in the 1970s, he complained he frequently had difficulty getting full disclosure from his ACBL opponents (to the extent that once an ACBL opponent prevaricated by pretending not to speak English). While I deprecate most of the views of ACBLer (and World Champion) Bobby Wolff, I applaud his 1990s campaign for full disclosure when he was ACBL President and WBF President, via Bobby's lucidly and pellucidly written articles about "Crypto" and "Telltale". 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 Jun 29 07:42:10 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:42:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Tempus fugit (was Displaying...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A468AC2.5000807@consolidated.net> Message-ID: Bob Park: >Please show us where the laws or regulations require one to lead before >writing down the contract. Law 90B2: The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): unduly slow play by a contestant. Richard Hills: Note that Law 90B2 refers to "contestant", not "player". I am noted for celerity and panache, but the Ali-Hills contestant is often unduly slow. Therefore, despite me being personally celeritous, Law 90B2 sometimes requires me to be super-celeritous - leading before writing down the contract - to compensate for Hashmat Ali's earlier excessive exegesis. Bob Park: >I am of the opinion that the opening leader deserves as much time as >anyone else in the play of the hand... Richard Hills: I am of the opinion that Law 90B2 requires a contestant who has been unduly slow early in the round to make every reasonable effort to catch up later in the round. Note that the Law 72A objective "to obtain a higher score than the other contestants" is modified by this caveat: "whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Mon Jun 29 08:11:51 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:11:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8616613.1246255911552.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Many players who get and use UI from partner awakening them to the true > nature of their partnership agreements state, "It was obvious from the > auction that I had misbid," but in most cases an alternative theory of > partner improvising a call (in this case an improvised long-suit trial > bid by North, which is consistent with the frequent use of long-suit > trials and fit-showing jumps by North-South in other auctions) is also > possible. I think you are overlooking one vital point. In my experience, those "forgotten transfer" auctions frequently work out like this 1NT 2C 2D (1) pass 2H(2) pass 3D pass pass(3) (1) intended as natural, non-forcing, alerted as transfer (2) accepting the transfer (3) I guess he has forgotten yet again that we play transfers here Do you want to allow that? 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 29 08:18:17 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:18:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <40137.99.7.154.104.1246239986.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: >>...weaker players...haven't worked out these fancy meanings...an >>unexpected response suggests a misunderstanding. A semi-weak player privately suggested a non-fancy meaning for 2H: >Or I may guess pd has five H's and a singleton D (had a H mixed >in with his D's) and pass also. Richard Hills quibbles: If partner never forgets to alert, then an "expected non-alert" means zero chance of partner misunderstanding your bid as an alertable bid of 2D-transfer-to-hearts. And that is what Laws 73C and 75A require you to assume once partner's "unexpected* alert" gives you UI. Since assuming a misunderstanding is not permitted after UI, then even weaker players are required by The Fabulous Law Book to assume something else, for example a mis-sort by partner. What's the problem? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 29 08:47:31 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:47:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Sanity Klavs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8616613.1246255911552.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Groucho Marx (1890-1977): "From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it." Thomas Dehn: >I think you are overlooking one vital point. > >In my experience, those "forgotten transfer" auctions frequently >work out like this > >1NT 2C 2D(1) pass >2H(2) pass 3D pass >pass(3) > >(1) intended as natural, non-forcing, alerted as transfer >(2) accepting the transfer >(3) I guess he has forgotten yet again that we play transfers here > >Do you want to allow that? Richard Hills: Yes. One of the all-time laughter convulsing bridge articles is attached to the end of this post. Inter alia, Maurice Harrison-Gray wrote: Here is a pretty example from a European championship match between Austria and France: Dealer West: E-W vulnerable WEST EAST AT QJ9864 J76 A42 AKQ5 4 AQJ4 973 Austria made four spades with an overtrick. France did not fare so well after the following sequence: WEST EAST 2NT 3H 3S 4H Pass I have dropped a hint so you can imagine what happened. Suppose you are West. Having taken the transfer, how would you react to East's bid of four hearts? He has clearly forgotten the convention and hearts are his real suit. 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 A Short History of Texas, by Maurice Harrison-Gray (Bridge Magazine, December 1960) The epic pages of American history have been opened for us by Hollywood and the wide screen. Names like Gettysburg and the Little Big Horn have become as familiar as Waterloo and the Somme. Everyone is aware that in 1836, at a crumbling mission-fort known as The Alamo, 182 sons of Texas died with their boots on in the cause of independence. Let us spare a thought for those other heroes who have perished in the name of Texas. "Remember the Alamo" is no longer the rally cry; "Remember Texas" has taken its place. Strange entries began to appear on score sheets in our duplicate pairs contests. Why should one pair settle for four hearts, with a two-one trump fit, when all others playing their way had reached a laydown four spades? Some years ago the eventual winners of the Master Pairs had their fair share of unlucky boards. This was one of them: Dealer West: Nil vulnerable WEST EAST Q5 AK7632 KT964 2 K93 A75 KJ9 752 Game was cold as the cards lay in spades or no-trumps but the gallery at this table had cause to buzz like a beehive. The auction consisted of one no-trump by West and four *hearts* by East. "Sorry my trumps are so poor," said West waggishly as he put down dummy, but he bit his lip hard when his partner showed out on the second round of trumps. The contract was not made. Well, well, thought the onlookers, even a world champion can have a lapsus linguae; but why should East act like the injured party, with West bowing his head in shame? And why the cryptic reference to Texas? I could have put them wise, having witnessed the following rubber bridge episode only a few days earlier: Dealer North: Both vulnerable NORTH K9 QJ96 AKT8 KT7 WEST EAST 72 653 K83 A7542 976532 --- QJ A6432 SOUTH AQJT84 T QJ4 985 The bidding was routine: one no-trump by North, four spades by South. But not so the play. Thanks to a Mr McKenney, the defenders had quite a party. Trick 1: queen of clubs covered by the king and ace; Trick 2: *two* of clubs to the knave; Trick 3: *two* of diamonds and ruff by East; Trick 4: *three* of clubs and ruff by West; Trick 5: *nine* of diamonds and ruff by East; Trick 6: *two* of hearts to the king (South was already two down, so East could afford to show off); Trick 7: a third diamond ruff put the contract four down. A word about the personnel. South, a British international, was noted for his ready wit; North was an American visitor. "Your fault, partner," said South, recovering his poise, "You should open such hands with one spade. I raise you to four and you make it in comfort." "In Texas where I come from," drawled the stranger, "I could open that hand with one no-trump and still play it in four spades," he proceeded to explain. By this time, of course, everyone knows the big idea. In brief, let us say that South views a long string of hearts with little or nothing on the side after a strong 1NT by his partner and figures he is worth a shot at four hearts. But wouldn't it be nice if partner could play the hand with the lead coming up to a tenace? The transfer is neatly effected by means of the Texas convention. South simply bids four in the next lower- ranking suit, in this case four diamonds; North converts to four hearts, knowing that to be partner's real suit, and there you are. Flawless and foolproof! Thus, on the hand from the Master Pairs, East judged that four spades might play better from the other side of the table. In the rubber bridge episode, a bid of four hearts could be converted to a virtually unbeatable four spades. I say "virtually" because East had had time to find an ex post facto defence. "If it's my lead," he said, "I might well try a low heart." "Could be," North replied, "but it's not wise to make a lead like that if you ever come to Texas. Some of our boys still pack a gun." There is only one snag. The modern Texan faces a foe far more insidious than the Commanche, the Mexican and the Yankee carpetbagger. It is a new version of the civil war between North and South. This is what happens. North opens 1NT. South takes a deep breath and bids four hearts. As the proprieties bar him from adding, "Remember Texas," he is left to toil in four hearts by an absent-minded partner. Alternatively, South forgets the convention but North remembers. Even in the best circles we get episodes such as this: Dealer North: N-S vulnerable NORTH KT6 A2 K8654 AK3 WEST EAST A87 J5432 975 63 AQ92 T73 T95 J42 SOUTH Q9 KQJT84 J Q876 This hand came from the European Championship of 1958. The British North opened 1NT and South blandly bid four hearts. North was not the absent-minded one on this occasion; he transferred to four spades. South then woke up; the only way to clarify the situation, he decided, was to jump to six hearts. North grinned sardonically and passed. West does not appear to have noticed anything unusual in the proceedings; perhaps he was taken in by South's well- simulated air of insouciance. He led the ace of spades and South blanched when he saw that another ace was missing ... how was he going to talk his way out of this one? Strange to relate, the slam made. West felt that an attempt to cash his other ace, apart from insulting his opponents, would hand them the contract if South were void in diamonds; a passive spade continuation, he decided, was a much safer shot. The result was thus a unique triumph for the Anglo-Texas alliance. Would this slam have been bid (and made) if our pair had never heard of the convention? There was less justice on this one: Dealer South: N-S vulnerable NORTH K QJT873 AT972 T WEST EAST T94 87532 62 A54 J643 --- 7652 KQ843 SOUTH AQJ6 K9 KQ85 AJ9 In a recent pairs tournament North played this hand, at all tables but one, in six hearts or six diamonds; the contract was invariably made. There was one baffling entry on the score sheet: six hearts doubled, 200 to East- West. Was it a case of a revoke or pulling a wrong card? Then someone noticed that South had played the hand. The bidding, it transpired, had gone like this: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 2NT Pass 4D Pass 4H Pass 4NT(1) Pass 5H Pass 6H Dble(2) Pass Pass Pass (1) Blackwood (2) Lightner North was a player of imagination. He was going to be in six or seven as soon as he heard the opening bid, but it might pay to make South the declarer. The ace of spades might be missing, for instance: if South held the AQ of clubs, however, an opening club lead would present him with an overtrick and a possible top on the board. This was not a Texas success story. The contract was one down, West having concluded that the double called for a diamond lead. The hand that follows, from a teams' match, was another perverse affair: Dealer South: Both vulnerable NORTH QT2 A87642 A653 --- WEST EAST K63 98754 KJ95 3 T Q8 Q9764 KT532 SOUTH AJ QT KJ9742 AJ8 In Room 1, where South opened one diamond, he had no trouble in making a final contract of six diamonds. In Room 2, influenced by his tenaces, he bid one no-trump. "This is a hand for Texas if ever there was one," was the thought that struck his partner. All hope of reaching the only makeable slam vanished when North came forward with four diamonds. South duly converted, but a final contract of six hearts proved beyond his powers. Thus far I have dealt with the basic situation where a response of four diamonds or four hearts is converted to four hearts or four spades. As you will know, anything that comes from Texas has to be bigger and better. In due course, Mr Oswald Jacoby, of Dallas, produced a bigger and better convention, to be known as the Jacoby Transfer Bid. This is simply a logical extension. Why restrict yourself to using Texas at the four-level? For example, South opens 1NT and gets a response of two hearts which he converts to two spades; North will be able to pass with the equivalent of a weakness take-out into two spades with certain theoretical advantages. This refinement can be combined with the popular 1NT:2C convention; you can also throw in asking bid and other gadgets for good measure. Here is a pretty example from a European championship match between Austria and France: Dealer West: E-W vulnerable WEST EAST AT QJ9864 J76 A42 AKQ5 4 AQJ4 973 Austria made four spades with an overtrick. France did not fare so well after the following sequence: WEST EAST 2NT 3H 3S 4H Pass I have dropped a hint so you can imagine what happened. Suppose you are West. Having taken the transfer, how would you react to East's bid of four hearts? He has clearly forgotten the convention and hearts are his real suit. I might add that, in my opinion, East deserved to be boiled in Texas oil. Anyone who makes an asking bid of *four hearts* after such a start is trying his partner too far. A variation on this theme: Dealer West: E-W vulnerable WEST EAST AQT7 J8 KJ2 Q98753 AJ 3 Q965 JT82 West bid 1NT and North came in with two diamonds. East wished to compete but a problem arose: he was unable to make a natural bid of two hearts, for that would sound like a request for a transfer to two spades. There was a neat way out - he could say three diamonds and pass West's conversion to three hearts. And so the auction proceeded: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT 2D 3D 4D 4S Pass 5H Pass 6H Dble Pass Pass Pass The defence collected 1100 with the aid of a club ruff. One can hardly pin the blame on the Jacoby Transfer Bid, even supposing it was ever designed for such a situation; the trouble was that West took three diamonds to be a cue bid in the enemy suit. Even though most of our players stick to Texas at the four level, there is always the mnemonic factor and human frailty to contend with. A remedy was found by a group of players in Johannesburg. It came to the notice of two of our leading lights after a typical accident in a pairs tournament. West opened 1NT and passed his partner's bid of four hearts. North-South duly scored 300; elsewhere a contract of four spades gave 620 or 650 to East-West. "Texas is grand," said East, "but it's becoming rather expensive." One of the opponents chipped in: "We had the same problem until we switched to 'unforgettable Texas', you know, the South African version." This is the idea. A jump to four hearts is apt to sound like an everyday natural bid. A response of four clubs or four diamonds is far less familiar and the most scatter-brained partner will wake up to the fact that he is being asked to bid four hearts or four spades. A few days later, after deciding to adopt this variation, our two experts picked up the following in a Gold Cup match: Dealer West: Both vulnerable WEST EAST KT9 6 K943 QJT85 AK82 4 AT K98742 I believe in giving my readers some work to do, so you are asked to account for this sequence: WEST EAST 1NT 4C 4S 5C 5NT 6C 6NT Pass The first part is easy - East bid four clubs because he felt that four hearts, played by his partner, would be an ideal contract. but now another son of Texas appears on the scene, in the person of Mr John Gerber, of Houston. You are bound to have heard of his convention, which is used by many players. For example, West opens 2NT and East's hand is like: KQJ965 8 3 KQ952 East is solely concerned with the number of aces in his partner's hand. The bid that meets the caes is a Gerber four clubs. This calls on West to declarer his ace content in the Blackwood manner: four diamonds denies an ace, four hearts shows one ace, and so on. On the next round, should East be concerned with kings, he follows up with five clubs. By now, if you review the actual sequence, light will dawn. Our experts had overlooked a clash of conventions when they switched to South African Texas. From West's angle, four clubs was Gerber; so he showed his two aces. His partner's agonised attempt to find a resting place sounded like a further ask for kings; so he showed his three kings. The final contract went three down. The rival team stopped at five hearts, just made. Those who follow the Texas flag have something in common with the heroes of the Alamo. In most cases, as you will note, they die with their bidding boots on. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 29 09:36:42 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:36:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Buridan's ass [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >> ... 1. There was no doubt in the committee ... that pass was a >>logical alternative. ... Steve Willner: >but Grattan Endicott: >> ... It was also clear to North from his knowledge of fit that it >>would be bad bridge judgement to pass. ... Steve Willner: >Does anybody besides me find these contradictory? Richard Hills: Nope. Where is it written that two logical alternatives must be equal in their goodness, impossible to choose between? As I have repeated ad nauseum, a logical alternative is not necessarily logical. See Law 16B1(b). So a logical alternative may possibly be associated with "bad bridge judgement", thus making an alternative unequal "good bridge judgement" logical alternative somewhat easier to choose (provided that one has "good bridge judgement"). What's the problem? Roger Pewick: [snip] >>>The problem I have with Grattan's assertion is that I have >>>failed to find the passage within L16B that makes provision for >>>mitigation of UI via AI. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, the solution to Roger's problem is not to be found in Law 16B, but rather found in the word "unaffected" of Law 16A1(a): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source;" Richard Hills: North knew from the auction and his cards that the double-fit (unknown to South) strongly suggested "when in doubt, bid one more". North knew from the UI of the slowness of South's double that that UI strongly suggested "when in doubt, bid one more". It seems to me that the Grattanical argument is that tautological UI means that AI is "unaffected". Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 29 14:37:18 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:37:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: <80F0B78F-B170-401B-80AB-5F84F7AD0B4F@starpower.net> References: <476138.1246002262333.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <80F0B78F-B170-401B-80AB-5F84F7AD0B4F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A48B57E.2010205@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > As I previously suggested, however, we need not agree that "partner's > comment is clearly UI" to agree that it is nevertheless a clear > violation of L73B1, which we can rectify per L12A1, which would allow > Thomas to select as the appropriate indemnity the imposition of L16B1- > like constraints on the OS for the duration of the auction only, as > he would like to. That's totally different from actually applying > L16B; it is rectifying not just a different infraction, but an > infraction by a different offender. > Indeed, the remark is something which makes you look at the hand again, and if you do so because of the remark, you may make a call which can be called "suggested by the UI". OTOH, if you look into the hand in order to make a decision, and you would always do so in the situation under question, you may see the missort and make a call which has no LA. Examples: You open 2H with 6 diamonds, partner says "that cannot be true". a- LHO passes, so does your partner, and RHO doubles. There is no need for you to re-examine your cards, so you should pass as you would always do. b- LHO passes, partner calls 2NT (asking for features and strength). You would normally always look into your hand in order to decide (well, most of us would), so you are entitled to do so now as well. c- LHO passes, partner passes, RHO bids 3NT. You have no reason to inspect your hand, so you pass. Partner doubles. Again you have no reason to inspect your hand, and you pass again. Now you have to lead, and that requires you to look into the hand again (well, almost all of us would), and you may do so and lead AK of diamonds and play him 2 down. Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 29 16:10:43 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:10:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Demon's table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 28, 2009, at 8:55 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>>> Yes, there is an emerging consensus that "demonstrable" means >>>> instead "demonstrable to the class of player". > > Eric Landau: > >>> I know of no precedent for ruling that extraneous information >>> was conveyed by a player calling in "normal tempo" when he >>> would normally be "expected" to huddle. That way would lie >>> madness. > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ And no doubt despatch of sundry TDs to mental institutions. >> Lawmakers too, probably. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Opener Responder > 2NT 3NT (normal tempo) > Pass > > Director summoned, both the TD and AC adjusted the score. True > story from an Aussie National some years ago. > > Madness? > > No, the partnership had recently and foolishly agreed that a 3NT > response would be artificial, promising 5 spades and 4 hearts. > > The responder was a thoughtful chap who very frequently huddled, > but did not do so in this case. Ergo, the celerity of the 3NT > demonstrably suggested that the responder had forgotten the new > agreement, so the opener elected the demonstrably suggested Pass > for +630 rather than the logical alternative of 4S for -300. > > What's the problem? Accepting the inference from the above that 2NT-P-3NT, artificially showing five spades and four hearts, is not alertable at an Aussie National. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 29 17:42:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:42:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Demon's table References: Message-ID: <000801c9f8d0$2af8bc40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Demon's table >> >> No, the partnership had recently and foolishly agreed that a 3NT >> response would be artificial, promising 5 spades and 4 hearts. >> >> The responder was a thoughtful chap who very frequently huddled, >> but did not do so in this case. Ergo, the celerity of the 3NT >> demonstrably suggested that the responder had forgotten the new >> agreement, so the opener elected the demonstrably suggested Pass >> for +630 rather than the logical alternative of 4S for -300. >> >> What's the problem? > > Accepting the inference from the above that 2NT-P-3NT, artificially > showing five spades and four hearts, is not alertable at an Aussie > National. > +=+ "unwonted speed" (Law 16B1). Not 'normal' as in the original question put. ~ G ~ +=+ From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 29 23:59:48 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:59:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> 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! -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 30 00:52:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:52:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004601c9f90c$abe539a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? ................................. omissis ................................. 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! ...................................................................................... +=+ 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 ~ +=+ [* I presume that Adam's rhetorical question refers to a second revoke in the same suit when it has not yet become established, and a 'request' for a TD's ruling - players do not 'insist'.] ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 30 01:01:52 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:01:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Demon's table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c9f8d0$2af8bc40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: David Bodanis, A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation, p 87 When she [Maja Einstein] described the high-school Greek teacher who complained that nothing would ever become of her brother, she added: "And in fact Albert Einstein never did attain a professorship of Greek grammar." Richard Hills: >>No, the partnership had recently and foolishly agreed that a 3NT >>response would be artificial, promising 5 spades and 4 hearts. >> >>The responder was a thoughtful chap who very frequently huddled, >>but did not do so in this case. Ergo, the celerity of the 3NT >>demonstrably suggested that the responder had forgotten the new >>agreement, so the opener elected the demonstrably suggested Pass >>for +630 rather than the logical alternative of 4S for -300. >> >>What's the problem? Eric Landau: >Accepting the inference from the above that 2NT-P-3NT, artificially >showing five spades and four hearts, is not alertable at an Aussie >National. Richard Hills: Opener was fully aware that 3NT was alertable, and opener indeed duly alerted 3NT before opener intentionally selected a non-systemic Pass. Grattan Endicott: +=+ "unwonted speed" (Law 16B1). Not 'normal' as in the original question put. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Yes, the philosophical Greek question is whether: (a) "normal tempo" is a fixed Platonic ideal, or (b) "normal tempo" is a variable depending upon the (fast or average or slow) class of player. The actual TD and actual AC voted au gratin for (b). Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 30 01:52:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:52:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Claim jumping [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, Houston non-NABC case 1 thread: [snip] >>Is correctly sorting your hand after a reminder Lawful or unLawful? Eric Landau, Houston non-NABC case 1 thread: >That is what we're trying to decide via this thread. One possible >answer, which IMO has intuitive appeal, is that it depends on >whether the reminder itself is lawful or unlawful. [snip] Richard Hills, jumping to an old claim thread: Suppose one claims on the basis of mis-sorted cards, an opponent Lawfully objects, and with correctly sorted cards one still makes one's contract on the only normal* line? Herman De Wael, Houston non-NABC case 1 thread: >Examples: > >You open 2H with 6 diamonds, partner says "that cannot be true". > >a- LHO passes, so does your partner, and RHO doubles. There is no >need for you to re-examine your cards, so you should pass as you >would always do. > >b- LHO passes, partner calls 2NT (asking for features and strength). >You would normally always look into your hand in order to decide >(well, most of us would), so you are entitled to do so now as well. > >c- LHO passes, partner passes, RHO bids 3NT. You have no reason to >inspect your hand, so you pass. Partner doubles. Again you have no >reason to inspect your hand, and you pass again. Now you have to >lead, and that requires you to look into the hand again (well, >almost all of us would), and you may do so and lead AK of diamonds >and play him 2 down. Richard Hills, jumping to an old claim thread: d- Your claim is disputed, which gives you reason to look at your hand and now choose the only normal* line based on your real cards??? UI (whether from partner's comment or an opponent's claim objection) is UI, prohibiting your selection of a demonstrably suggested logical alternative from amongst several logical alternatives, which here are the demonstrably suggested careful examination of your cards, and the non-suggested careless examination of your cards. It is incorrect to assume that a second examination of your cards will necessarily resolve your earlier mis-sorting. A case in point is the claim on a mis-sort quoted in the previous post on this thread, in which the mis-sort lasted throughout the entire auction and also the first three tricks of the play. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 30 03:22:24 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:22:24 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? References: <28694844.1246083621639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <694eadd40906291459q6c5164d9y25946117f8510d1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <70A91E2C2D1244238425DD11D4DD929F@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > I do not see the problem (other than the US culture of > dealing out severe punishments rather than fixing mistakes). Yes, Madoff's 150-year jail sentence was a US cultural thing. Other cultures would have just asked for the money back, with the goal of achieving equity. "Rectifications" in bridge have two purposes: to redress damage and to discourage players from violating the Laws in the future. If mere "equity" governs, players will have less incentive to play by the rules of the game. That is why Adam's emendation for Law 12C1(e)(ii), taking care not to punish the offending side further than requiring mere redress, was wrong (as the WBFLC said when he first proposed it in 2001). Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 30 04:33:34 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:33:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Ambiguity in revoke number-of-tricks penalty? In-Reply-To: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200906292334.n5TNYqJD025721@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A49797E.8000302@nhcc.net> > From: Adam Wildavsky > 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. Law 12B1 says "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." That seems clear enough. I don't see anything in the Laws that even hints the two revokes are not separate and distinct infractions. (To be fair, the Laws are deficient in failing to explain what happens in general when there are multiple infractions on one deal.) Rectifications differ according to circumstance, but that doesn't mean the two revokes are one and the same. 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. If you want authority, Max Bavin's view is not a bad one to adopt. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 30 04:40:08 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:40:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Houston non-NABC case 1 In-Reply-To: <200906291402.n5TE2UGQ017200@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200906291402.n5TE2UGQ017200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A497B08.8040509@nhcc.net> > From: Herman De Wael > Indeed, the remark is something which makes you look at the hand again, > and if you do so because of the remark, you may make a call which can be > called "suggested by the UI". As Eric and I have both noted, UI has nothing to do with this. The relevant infraction is of L73B1, and L12B and 12C tell us whether and how to adjust. (Broadly speaking, we figure out what would have happened if the infraction had not occurred.) Herman is reaching more or less the right answers but via the wrong route. The recipient of the remark is always allowed to look at his own cards, and neither "logical alternatives" nor "suggested over another" come into things. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 30 09:10:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:10:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200906261322.n5QDMFsC003549@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: >>Limited opportunities to use "toruous"; my tortuous mind >>imitates Harry Potter by always spell checking. :-) :-) Tony Musgrove: >I believe the word means something like a torus, a doughnut >shape with nothing in the middle, but which eventually >connects back with itself, 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 Ted Ying, May 2002 (A nothing dog's diary which connects back with itself) >Day 181 > >7:00 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE! >8:00 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE! >9:30 am - OH BOY! A WALK! MY FAVORITE! >10:30 am - OH BOY A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE! >11:30 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE >12:00 noon - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE! >1:00 pm - OH BOY! THE YARD! MY FAVORITE! >4:00 pm - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE! >5:00 PM - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE! >5:30 PM - OH BOY! MOM! MY FAVORITE! > >Day 182 > >7:00 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE! >8:00 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE! >9:30 am - OH BOY! A WALK! MY FAVORITE! >10:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE! >11:30 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE! >12:00 noon - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE! >1:00 pm - OH BOY! THE YARD! MY FAVORITE! >1:30 pm - ooooh. bath. bummer. >4:00 pm - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE! >5:30 PM - OH BOY! MOM! MY FAVORITE! Ted Ying, May 2002 (A cunning cat's diary with an evil master plan) >DAY 752 > >My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling >objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while I am forced >to eat dry cereal. The only thing that keeps me going is the >hope of escape, and the mild satisfaction I get from ruining >the occasional piece of furniture. Tomorrow I may eat another >houseplant. > >DAY 761 > >Today my attempt to kill my captors by weaving around their >feet while they were walking almost succeeded, must try this >at the top of the stairs. In an attempt to disgust and >repulse these vile oppressors, I once again induced myself >to vomit on their favorite chair...must try this on their >bed. > >DAY 762 > >Decapitated a mouse and brought them the headless body, in >attempt to make them aware of what I am capable of, and to >try to strike fear into their hearts. They only cooed and >condescended about what a good little cat I was...Hmmm. Not >working according to plan. > >DAY 768 > >I am finally aware of how sadistic they are. For no good >reason I was chosen for the water torture. This time however >it included a burning foamy chemical called "shampoo." What >sick minds could invent such a liquid. My only consolation >is the piece of thumb still stuck between my teeth. > >DAY 771 > >There was some sort of gathering of their accomplices. I was >placed in solitary throughout the event. However, I could >hear the noise and smell the foul odor of the glass tubes >they call "beer." More importantly I overheard that my >confinement was due to MY power of "allergies." Must learn >what this is and how to use it to my advantage. > >DAY 774 > >I am convinced the other captives are flunkies and maybe >snitches. The dog is routinely released and seems more than >happy to return. He is obviously a half-wit. The bird on the >other hand has got to be an informant, and speaks with them >regularly. I am certain he reports my every move. Due to his >current placement in the metal room his safety is assured. > >But I can wait, it is only a matter of time... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 30 10:01:23 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:01:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000e01c9f958$f8814730$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott>>Limited opportunities to use "toruous"; my tortuous >>>mind imitates Harry Potter by always spell checking. >>> :-) >>> :-) > +=+ I believe my spell-checker may have grown up in the colonies. It is unable to cope with almost any plurisyllabic word containing the letter 'u', let alone a word having two of them. ~ G ~ +=+