From henk at ripe.net Fri May 1 01:01:01 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: <200904302301.n3UN11Tt020112@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 nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri May 1 01:24:36 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 00:24:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) In-Reply-To: <729087.90265.qm@web27908.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <729087.90265.qm@web27908.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49FA3334.5030206@talktalk.net> [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : indeed, but giving a ruling on the basis of facts we've heard of is easy in comparison with understanding another person's ruling when we don't know which facts they had heard of. I still think it a bit futile to try and guess the other person's mental processes ; after all, that's what makes determining opponents' hands so difficult. [Grattan] +=+ I do not object to comment on the basis of limited information. It does irk me, however, when I read put-downs of ACs without knowing the facts they had in view or the view they took of them. Some committee chairmen do not commit this information to paper and that, I think, is unhelpful to the game. [Alan Hill] My guess is that they accepted the assertion that South knew North was not strong as they take action immediately with strong hands. [Nigel] This is a lot of fuss about putting the cat out; but I feel that I speak for many BLMLers: For example, we welcome commentaries in appeal booklets, even when they reject the rulings of ACs or DCs. We appreciate that commentators criticisms may suffer from ignorance of a cogent detail known only to the TD or AC. If the TD or AC don't divulge such a fact, then we may consider that, in itself, to be a failing. FWIW, I fear that Alan may be right. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 1 02:39:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 01:39:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) References: <729087.90265.qm@web27908.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <49FA3334.5030206@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000e01c9c9f5$5296e100$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) > > [Alan Hill] > My guess is that they accepted the assertion that South > knew North was not strong as they take action immediately > with strong hands. > +=+ In some ambiences that might qualify as "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From henk at ripe.net Fri May 1 08:59:38 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 08:59:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <200905010659.n416xcup017752@cat.ripe.net> 44 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 42 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 38 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 25 ehaa (at) starpower.net 23 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 15 svenpran (at) online.no 15 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 14 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 13 henk (at) ripe.net 12 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 11 john (at) asimere.com 10 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 9 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 8 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 6 henk (at) rtflb.org 6 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 6 Gampas (at) aol.com 5 lapinjatka (at) jldata.fi 5 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 4 gampas (at) aol.com 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 3 wmevius (at) hotmail.com 3 tom (at) abacurial.com 3 tedying (at) yahoo.com 3 james (at) kineticmind.com 3 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 3 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 3 adam (at) irvine.com 2 sater (at) xs4all.nl 2 rgtjbos (at) xs4all.nl 2 posundelin (at) yahoo.se 2 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 henk (at) uijterwaal.nl 1 wrgptfan (at) gmail.com 1 schoderb (at) msn.com 1 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 1 ranjubhattacharjee (at) hotmail.com 1 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 1 nbpfemu (at) bigpond.com 1 kgrauwel (at) hotmail.com 1 karel (at) esatclear.ie 1 clubanddiamond (at) yahoo.co.uk 1 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 1 blml (at) arcor.de 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat May 2 10:21:19 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 10:21:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) In-Reply-To: <000e01c9c9f5$5296e100$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <729087.90265.qm@web27908.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <49FA3334.5030206@talktalk.net> <000e01c9c9f5$5296e100$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49FC027F.3060807@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > " I am always very glad when Lord Salisbury > makes a great speech. It is sure to contain > at least one blazing indiscretion which it is a > delight to remember." > [3rd Earl of Morley 1843-1905] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:24 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) > > > >> [Alan Hill] >> My guess is that they accepted the assertion that South >> knew North was not strong as they take action immediately >> with strong hands. >> >> > +=+ In some ambiences that might qualify as "knowledge > and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" > AG : I wouldn't qualify this as "general knowledge". Thzre is a trend that advocates bidding immediately over a transfer with light, unbalanced hands, and to wait with stronger hands, with which you don't fear being preempted. There is another trend that advocates using delayed doubles, when you had an immediate double (or cue, as here) available, to show some type of hand that's difficult to show immediately ; here, a moderate H/m two-suiter would probably be used, but that's inconsistent with using lebensohl - or is it ? Rather, there is little "general knowledge" about what to do over an unexpected artificial bid. My guess is that they had a meta-agreement about using lebensohl (or good-bad, which is close) whenever possible but no specific agreement about the double. This isn't uncommon. In that case, they didn't do anything wrong. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 2 20:55:54 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 19:55:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) References: <729087.90265.qm@web27908.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <49FA3334.5030206@talktalk.net><000e01c9c9f5$5296e100$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49FC027F.3060807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000801c9cb57$a37029c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > " I am always very glad when Lord Salisbury > makes a great speech. It is sure to contain > at least one blazing indiscretion which it is a > delight to remember." > [3rd Earl of Morley 1843-1905] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:24 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) > > > >> [Alan Hill] >> My guess is that they accepted the assertion that South >> knew North was not strong as they take action immediately >> with strong hands. >> >> > +=+ In some ambiences that might qualify as "knowledge > and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" > AG : I wouldn't qualify this as "general knowledge". Thzre is a trend that advocates bidding immediately over a transfer with light, unbalanced hands, and to wait with stronger hands, with which you don't fear being preempted. There is another trend that advocates using delayed doubles, when you had an immediate double (or cue, as here) available, to show some type of hand that's difficult to show immediately ; here, a moderate H/m two-suiter would probably be used, but that's inconsistent with using lebensohl - or is it ? Rather, there is little "general knowledge" about what to do over an unexpected artificial bid. My guess is that they had a meta-agreement about using lebensohl (or good-bad, which is close) whenever possible but no specific agreement about the double. This isn't uncommon. In that case, they didn't do anything wrong. Best regards Alain .................................................................................................... +=+ I am not saying that such a concept would necessarily, nor even probably, apply in the place where the question arose as quoted on blml. However, in a closed environment such as a bridge club where the overwhelming majority play similar methods in similar situations, I would think that among the players participating the knowledge might be deemed 'general'. This thought has led me to a further point. In Law 40B6(a) the drafting subcommittee could perhaps have used different words with advantage. I have in mind some such wording as: "........... need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of bridge concepts generally known among players in the tournament." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Sat May 2 23:10:27 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 06:10:27 +0900 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) In-Reply-To: <000801c9cb57$a37029c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000801c9cb57$a37029c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <200905022110.AA19005@geller204.nifty.com> Grattan wrote: > This thought has led me to a further point. In Law 40B6(a) the >drafting subcommittee could perhaps have used different words with >advantage. I have in mind some such wording as: "........... need not >disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of >bridge concepts generally known among players in the tournament." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ A problem in the above can be seen by considering the case of the World Open pairs on Mars, in which one pair of visitors from Earth (easily recognizable by their lack of antennae) happens to be playing. Surely the Martians have an obligation (within reason, and to the best of their ability) to alert the Earthlings to treatments or conventions that might be "generally known among players in the tournament" (i.e., Martians), but not to Earthlings. -Bob From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 3 01:58:35 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 00:58:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) References: <000801c9cb57$a37029c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905022110.AA19005@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) > Grattan wrote: >> This thought has led me to a further point. In Law 40B6(a) the >>drafting subcommittee could perhaps have used different words with >>advantage. I have in mind some such wording as: "........... need not >>disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of >>bridge concepts generally known among players in the tournament." >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > A problem in the above can be seen by considering the case of the World > Open pairs on Mars, in which one pair of visitors from Earth (easily > recognizable > by their lack of antennae) happens to be playing. Surely the Martians > have > an obligation (within reason, and to the best of their ability) to alert > the > Earthlings to treatments or conventions that might be "generally known > among players in the tournament" (i.e., Martians), but not to Earthlings. > > -Bob < +=+ The text would need to be carefully considered and finely tuned, I agree. +=+ From geller at nifty.com Mon May 4 14:11:08 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 21:11:08 +0900 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> The bidding has gone N S 1D 1H 1NT 4C 5C At this point North (without calling the director) changes his call (after only a very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding card by mistake (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the director. North repeats to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." How should the director rule? ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 4 14:38:34 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 14:38:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <49FEE1CA.4090307@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a ?crit : > The bidding has gone > > N S > 1D 1H > 1NT 4C > 5C > > At this point North (without calling the director) changes his call (after only a > very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding card by mistake > (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the director. North repeats > to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." > > How should the director rule? > AG : IMOBO it's a pity that we have to guess whether North's statement is true. It may depend on whether he's accustomed to bidding boxes, how they're assembled (the position for 1C on some is the one for 1NT on others), his general dexterity, ... Ultimately, you might look at the diagram, take him away from the table and let him convince you that 4D was the obvious bid, but be careful : some can do this very convincingly ; whence I don't like this part of the procedure (or the whole procedure, BTW). Take this example : some Belgian players use Namyats, others inverted Namyats (where 4H/S is stronger thn 4C/D, with contract orientation in mind). 4C 5C oops, 4D I wanted to bid 5C, virtually forcing partner to go to slam with Spade control ; but I quickly remember we're playing 'weak Namyats' and decide to make a more unassuming slam try (kind of last train, if you want to put it that way). That can easily be correted in a split second if I'm quick of mind. Now imagine that North's hand is something like : Qxx - Kx - AKJxx - xxx. I wouldn't think he wanted to cue-bid 5C. The 'technical error' explanation is probably the right one. But make his hand : Txx - Kx - AJxxx - AJx, and it's less obvious : he might have wanted to return-cue 5C, then realized 4C was probably a splinter, so that 4D appears a more reasonable slam-try if any. All being said and done, you're just left guessing. Trying to make it an educated guess.is the best you can do. /Horresco referens./ Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 4 14:49:19 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 14:49:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <49FEE44F.2010202@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > The bidding has gone > > N S > 1D 1H > 1NT 4C > 5C > > At this point North (without calling the director) changes his call (after only a > very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding card by mistake > (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the director. North repeats > to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." > > How should the director rule? > Gather more facts. 5C and 4D are far apart, but not very far. What do the opponents say about the manner in which the change took place? Do they believe it is a slip of the hand? Did the player try to change immediately after seeing the bid he has in hand? Does the hand have clubs or diamonds? What is 4C? If it is Gerber, did the player alert (if necessary)? Anything that explains 5C from the hand and 4D from a system that player might have forgotten may influence the director to call the player a liar. Otherwise, I would accept the player's word that it is indeed a slip of the hand and allow L25 change. Herman. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Mon May 4 15:06:25 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:06:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:11 PM Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? > The bidding has gone > > N S > 1D 1H > 1NT 4C > 5C > > At this point North (without calling the director) changes his call (after > only a > very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding card by > mistake > (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the director. > North repeats > to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." "You get away with it THIS time, Don't try it again" seems to work quite well. > > How should the director rule? > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 4 15:33:08 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 09:33:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) In-Reply-To: <49FC027F.3060807@ulb.ac.be> References: <729087.90265.qm@web27908.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <49FA3334.5030206@talktalk.net> <000e01c9c9f5$5296e100$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49FC027F.3060807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <80077DE2-AAA0-441B-9C80-E9BEBBABEA19@starpower.net> On May 2, 2009, at 4:21 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Grattan a ?crit : > >> From: "Nigel Guthrie" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:24 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) >> >>> [Alan Hill] >>> My guess is that they accepted the assertion that South >>> knew North was not strong as they take action immediately >>> with strong hands. >> >> +=+ In some ambiences that might qualify as "knowledge >> and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" > > AG : I wouldn't qualify this as "general knowledge". > Thzre is a trend that advocates bidding immediately over a transfer > with light, unbalanced hands, and to wait with stronger hands, with > which you don't fear being preempted. > There is another trend that advocates using delayed doubles, when you > had an immediate double (or cue, as here) available, to show some type > of hand that's difficult to show immediately ; here, a moderate H/m > two-suiter would probably be used, but that's inconsistent with using > lebensohl - or is it ? > > Rather, there is little "general knowledge" about what to do over an > unexpected artificial bid. > > My guess is that they had a meta-agreement about using lebensohl (or > good-bad, which is close) whenever possible but no specific agreement > about the double. This isn't uncommon. In that case, they didn't do > anything wrong. General knowledge is not the same thing as general practice. As beginners, we learned certain "principles" that underlay our bidding practices. They were far too crude for more advanced levels of bidding expertise, and we adapted them accordingly, making specific agreements about different kinds of situations, or absorbing the local practices. Nevertheless, we retain memory of those principles and apply them in situations not covered by partnership agreement or local practice. Even if we don't generally use them, they are still part of our general bridge knowledge. In my milieu, I'd certainly accept as general bridge knowledge the principle that in an undiscussed non-forcing situation, bidding shows more than passing. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 4 15:40:08 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 15:40:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <49FEE44F.2010202@skynet.be> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <49FEE44F.2010202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49FEF038.2000307@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Robert Geller wrote: > >> The bidding has gone >> >> N S >> 1D 1H >> 1NT 4C >> 5C >> >> At this point North (without calling the director) changes his call (after only a >> very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding card by mistake >> (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the director. North repeats >> to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." >> >> How should the director rule? >> >> > > Gather more facts. > 5C and 4D are far apart, but not very far. > What do the opponents say about the manner in which the change took > place? Do they believe it is a slip of the hand? Did the player try to > change immediately after seeing the bid he has in hand? > AG : not very relevant. One might bid 5C, then, while the next player (or partner) thinks, realize what happened. It's even possible that LHO's reaction of surprise blew the gaff. And, conversely, obvious quickness (with the bidding card in hand or on the table) isn't the right criterion ; or at least it has to be matched against the player's usual rhythm. > Does the hand have clubs or diamonds? > What is 4C? > If it is Gerber, did the player alert (if necessary)? > AG : is it necessary ? Do snakes make push-ups ? 4C is of the self-alerting type, even without any applicable non-alert rule. > Anything that explains 5C from the hand and 4D from a system that player > might have forgotten may influence the director to call the player a liar. > AG : I'd say "self-deluding". This doesn't mean I'd think it. Here is one live case. Yoiur hand is : AQJxx - Kx - AJxx - xx. 1D 1H ? You wanted to bid 2S, pulled out a Stop card, then realized that it would be weak *in competition*. So you wait until they ask you to bid, and exclaim "but I dis call ! I doubled one hour ago !" (this pair plays double as 4+ spades, 1S as transfer to clubs). How can the TD ascertain that you're lying ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 4 15:42:51 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 09:42:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <097B9F36-6399-4EF9-AA8E-6CE08EACE70C@starpower.net> On May 4, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > The bidding has gone > > N S > 1D 1H > 1NT 4C > 5C > > At this point North (without calling the director) changes his call > (after only a > very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding > card by mistake > (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the > director. North repeats > to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." > > How should the director rule? Either way, of course. This isn't a matter of law or bridge judgment, but of simple fact: either he mispulled or he didn't. You decide. Talk to the players, ask them to reproduce the action, check the deal to see if a 5C call might make sense, whatever; do your best to ferret out a justifiable finding, make it, and move on. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Mon May 4 16:44:11 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 15:44:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com><49FEE44F.2010202@skynet.be> <49FEF038.2000307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 1D 1H ? You wanted to bid 2S, pulled out a Stop card, then realized that it would be weak *in competition*. So you wait until they ask you to bid, and exclaim "but I dis call ! I doubled one hour ago !" (this pair plays double as 4+ spades, 1S as transfer to clubs). How can the TD ascertain that you're lying ? "Stop Double is permitted, Now you're trying it on!" John Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon May 4 17:04:57 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 17:04:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Geller > The bidding has gone > > N S > 1D 1H > 1NT 4C > 5C > > At this point North (without calling the director) changes his call (after only a > very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding card by mistake > (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the director. North repeats > to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." > > How should the director rule? You have already had several replies, with most of which I agree. But there is one thing you definitely must NEVER do and that is to investigate which cards the player actually holds (for instance by looking at his hand) and then make your ruling. On acting that way you give away so much information about his hand to the other players that you probably make it impossible to subsequently obtain a result on the board by "normal" play. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 4 17:20:18 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 17:20:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com><49FEE44F.2010202@skynet.be> <49FEF038.2000307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49FF07B2.4070708@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > > 1D 1H ? > > You wanted to bid 2S, pulled out a Stop card, then realized that it > would be weak *in competition*. So you wait until they ask you to bid, > and exclaim "but I dis call ! I doubled one hour ago !" > (this pair plays double as 4+ spades, 1S as transfer to clubs). > > How can the TD ascertain that you're lying ? > > "Stop Double is permitted, Now you're trying it on!" John > Okay, but's a cange of mind, isn't it ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 4 17:22:01 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 17:22:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> Message-ID: <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > But there is one thing you definitely must NEVER do and that is to > investigate which cards the player actually holds (for instance by looking > at his hand) and then make your ruling. On acting that way you give away so > much information about his hand to the other players that you probably make > it impossible to subsequently obtain a result on the board by "normal" play. > AG : not really in this precise case : - either you disallow the change and they're in trouble anyway ; - or you accept it, which means you think the replacement bid corresopnds to the hand, and that's no news. From jrhind at therock.bm Mon May 4 17:47:52 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 12:47:52 -0300 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: My general philosophy with these situations is that I do not accept mis-pulls that are not the immediately adjacent bid, i.e. I would accept the 5C/5D mis-pull or the 4C/5C but not a change of row and column in the bid-box. I fully realize that there may be occasional cases where the person may really have meant to pull 4D but pulled 5C in mistake but it is just too hard to cut through the tape to determine whether that is really what happened. If you allow one then you get trapped into the consistency or lack-there-of thing that I really try to avoid. Jack On 5/4/09 10:06 AM, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Geller" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:11 PM > Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? > > >> The bidding has gone >> >> N S >> 1D 1H >> 1NT 4C >> 5C >> >> At this point North (without calling the director) changes his call (after >> only a >> very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding card by >> mistake >> (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the director. >> North repeats >> to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." > > "You get away with it THIS time, Don't try it again" seems to work quite > well. > > >> >> How should the director rule? >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon May 4 17:58:45 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 17:58:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > > But there is one thing you definitely must NEVER do and that is to > > investigate which cards the player actually holds (for instance by looking > > at his hand) and then make your ruling. On acting that way you give away so > > much information about his hand to the other players that you probably make > > it impossible to subsequently obtain a result on the board by "normal" play. > > > AG : not really in this precise case : Oh yes, in this case as well > > - either you disallow the change and they're in trouble anyway ; > - or you accept it, which means you think the replacement bid > corresopnds to the hand, and that's no news. You must make your ruling according to your "investigation" of the events that took place and not from revealing what cards the player holds. I have for instance had situations that quite obviously at the time were "slip of the hand", nobody doubted or challenged that. But afterwards it turned out that the player had actually intended (and thus replaced his call with) a deliberate misbid AKA a psychic call! Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 4 18:23:38 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 18:23:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com><49FEE44F.2010202@skynet.be> <49FEF038.2000307@ulb.ac.be> <49FF07B2.4070708@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49FF168A.4050906@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 4:20 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? > > > John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > >> 1D 1H ? >> >> You wanted to bid 2S, pulled out a Stop card, then realized that it >> would be weak *in competition*. So you wait until they ask you to bid, >> and exclaim "but I dis call ! I doubled one hour ago !" >> (this pair plays double as 4+ spades, 1S as transfer to clubs). >> >> How can the TD ascertain that you're lying ? >> >> "Stop Double is permitted, Now you're trying it on!" John >> >> > Okay, but's a cange of mind, isn't it ? > > Sure, but "Stop" ain't a call. ... and we know the bugger's up to it so we > tell him. We can finish the speech about "UI applies" but I'd rather he knew > I was on to him. > AG : agreed. However, you'll have to decide through ESP, in this case too, whether there was a change of mind (and UI and restrictions and the kitchen's sink) or whether the player just pulled "stop" in lieu of "double", surely one of the most plausible mistakes (because of same pocket and color), in which case no penalty, UI or enameled paraphernalia *. So the mechanics will be similar. Another possible case is a double or redouble, when the player just wanted to alert. This would mean he alerted too late. However, it could happen.. The confusion between "Double" and "TD" is marginally possible, but it is. Best regards Alain * that's just a show of defiance to the guy who said I write in a strangely affected way. He'll recognize himself. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 4 18:30:45 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 18:30:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49FF1835.8020506@ulb.ac.be> Jack Rhind a ?crit : > My general philosophy with these situations is that I do not accept > mis-pulls that are not the immediately adjacent bid AG : you'd consider the case of a player unaccustomed to those glossy plastic mirror-inverted BBs who pulled 1NT in lieu of 1C (or reciprocally). Automatisms being what they are, the claim of "I placed my thumb where I always do to pick 1C" makes sense. And, because missorting one's BB isn't subject to penalties AFAIC, this could also be a case of mechanical error, even if self-inflicted. But surely your criterion is essential in ordinary cases. Best regards Alain From jrhind at therock.bm Mon May 4 18:35:44 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 13:35:44 -0300 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <49FF1835.8020506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain, I agree with you comments exactly. It goes without saying as well, that a person with disability or physical conditions gets plenty of latitude to change. Best regards, Jack On 5/4/09 1:30 PM, "Alain Gottcheiner" wrote: > Jack Rhind a ?crit : >> My general philosophy with these situations is that I do not accept >> mis-pulls that are not the immediately adjacent bid > AG : you'd consider the case of a player unaccustomed to those glossy > plastic mirror-inverted BBs who pulled 1NT in lieu of 1C (or > reciprocally). Automatisms being what they are, the claim of "I placed > my thumb where I always do to pick 1C" makes sense. > > And, because missorting one's BB isn't subject to penalties AFAIC, this > could also be a case of mechanical error, even if self-inflicted. > > But surely your criterion is essential in ordinary cases. > > Best regards > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 4 18:37:44 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 18:37:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> Message-ID: <49FF19D8.9070205@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > You must make your ruling according to your "investigation" of the events > that took place and not from revealing what cards the player holds. > > I have for instance had situations that quite obviously at the time were > "slip of the hand", nobody doubted or challenged that. But afterwards it > turned out that the player had actually intended (and thus replaced his call > with) a deliberate misbid AKA a psychic call! > Sure, but I'll disallow the claim that the replacement bid was a psyche. Just too easy. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon May 4 20:19:09 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 10:19:09 -0800 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <3D10186BAB8546099E65EBFB1C9401EC@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Geller" > The bidding has gone > > N S > 1D 1H > 1NT 4C > 5C > > At this point North (without calling the director) changes his > call (after only a > very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding > card by mistake > (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the > director. North repeats > to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." > > How should the director rule? If the bidder has four aces, then he forgot momentarily that the correct response is 4D (0 or 4) to save bidding space, enabling partner to ask for kings with 5C. In that case the 5C bid stands. A 1NT rebid with four aces would mean the pair were playing weak notrumps, making a 1NT rebid strong. But we are not told that, so let's presume it was not the case. In any event, the 5C bid card is a long way from the 4D card, so I would not allow the change. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From henk at ripe.net Mon May 4 19:16:09 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 19:16:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> Message-ID: <49FF22D9.20904@ripe.net> Sven Pran wrote: > Oh yes, in this case as well > >> - either you disallow the change and they're in trouble anyway ; >> - or you accept it, which means you think the replacement bid >> corresopnds to the hand, and that's no news. > > You must make your ruling according to your "investigation" of the events > that took place and not from revealing what cards the player holds. This is easy to accomplish by taking the player away from the table, asking him what he wanted to do and perhaps take a look at his hand to confirm if his story is plausible. On return, you tell the table: a) You have decided that it was a mispull and allow the correction. The players now know that the first bid had no relation whatsoever with the hand and can ignore it. b) You have decided that it wasn't and don't allow the correction. The players now know that the hand has some alternative that the bidder might have considered and probably better fits the hand, that isn't very useful information. > I have for instance had situations that quite obviously at the time were > "slip of the hand", nobody doubted or challenged that. But afterwards it > turned out that the player had actually intended (and thus replaced his call > with) a deliberate misbid AKA a psychic call! See above, you ask the player away from the table. If he admits that he wanted to psyche, then you accept that. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Mon May 4 21:45:16 2009 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 21:45:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. Message-ID: <001c01c9ccf0$dfa3a170$9eeae450$@nl> How would you rule? The contract is 4NT played by South - something went obviously wrong in the bidding... KQJ76 9872 KQ4 9 T8 54 KQT AJ6543 9872 3 Q532 J876 A932 - AJT65 AKT4 West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and King. Declarer now plays spade to the King and Spade Queen. When seeing that both defenders follow suit on the Queen, he tables his hand, stating that he will ruff two hearts and discard the other two on the diamonds, making all tricks. Declarers mindset was obviously that he was playing a spade contract (which he did not deny). He has twelve top-tricks. At the table the TD ruled that given the fact that declarer thought he was playing spades a heart continuation in trick 4 is a normal play - leading to the loss of 6 tricks. But since the defense did not find the heart lead declarer has twelve toptricks. How would BLML rule? Rob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090504/1bf538ac/attachment.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon May 4 21:56:08 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 21:56:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Claiming_principles=2E=2E?= In-Reply-To: <001c01c9ccf0$dfa3a170$9eeae450$@nl> References: <001c01c9ccf0$dfa3a170$9eeae450$@nl> Message-ID: <1M14Gm-27LKLI0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> From: "Rob Bosman" > How would you rule? > > The contract is 4NT played by South - something went obviously wrong > in the bidding... > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?KQJ76 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?9872 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?KQ4 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?9 > > T8 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 54 > KQT ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AJ6543 > 9872 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 > Q532 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?J876 > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A932 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?- > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AJT65 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AKT4 > > West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and King. Declarer now plays spade > to the King and Spade Queen. When seeing that both defenders follow > suit on the Queen, he tables his hand, stating that he will ruff two > hearts and discard the other two on the diamonds, making all tricks. > Declarers mindset was obviously that he was playing a spade contract > (which he did not deny). He has twelve top-tricks. At the table the TD > ruled that given the fact that declarer thought he was playing spades > a heart continuation in trick 4 is a normal play - leading to the loss > of 6 tricks. But since the defense did not find the heart lead > declarer has twelve toptricks. How would BLML rule? I don't know how BLML would rule, but I would rule -3. The defence double-dummy is not that hard to find. From tedying at yahoo.com Mon May 4 22:07:18 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: <1M14Gm-27LKLI0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> References: <001c01c9ccf0$dfa3a170$9eeae450$@nl> <1M14Gm-27LKLI0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <467599.93143.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Peter Eidt To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 3:56:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claiming principles.. From: "Rob Bosman" > How would you rule? > > The contract is 4NT played by South - something went obviously wrong > in the bidding... > > KQJ76 > 9872 > KQ4 > 9 > > T8 54 > KQT AJ6543 > 9872 3 > Q532 J876 > > A932 > - > AJT65 > AKT4 > > West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and King. Declarer now plays spade > to the King and Spade Queen. When seeing that both defenders follow > suit on the Queen, he tables his hand, stating that he will ruff two > hearts and discard the other two on the diamonds, making all tricks. > Declarers mindset was obviously that he was playing a spade contract > (which he did not deny). He has twelve top-tricks. At the table the TD > ruled that given the fact that declarer thought he was playing spades > a heart continuation in trick 4 is a normal play - leading to the loss > of 6 tricks. But since the defense did not find the heart lead > declarer has twelve toptricks. How would BLML rule? I don't know how BLML would rule, but I would rule -3. The defence double-dummy is not that hard to find. TTY> I, too, would rule down three. The claim stated that declarer planned to ruff a heart. That meant that he would lead a heart and play a spade from hand. I think that West can easily see to with the HK, HQ and lead the HT to East's hand for six tricks. In this case, the claim statement does specify that he was planning to lead the hearts, so down three does see appropriate here. -Ted Ying. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090504/8f4f4771/attachment.html From jrhind at therock.bm Mon May 4 22:08:06 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 17:08:06 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: <001c01c9ccf0$dfa3a170$9eeae450$@nl> Message-ID: I will rule ?3. The defense gets their 6 heart tricks. Jack On 5/4/09 4:45 PM, "Rob Bosman" wrote: > How would you rule? > > The contract is 4NT played by South ? something went obviously wrong in the > bidding... > > KQJ76 > 9872 > KQ4 > 9 > T8 54 > KQT AJ6543 > 9872 3 > Q532 J876 > A932 > - > AJT65 > AKT4 > > West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and King. Declarer now plays spade to the King > and Spade Queen. When seeing that both defenders follow suit on the Queen, he > tables his hand, stating that he will ruff two hearts and discard the other > two on the diamonds, making all tricks. Declarers mindset was obviously that > he was playing a spade contract (which he did not deny). He has twelve > top-tricks. At the table the TD ruled that given the fact that declarer > thought he was playing spades a heart continuation in trick 4 is a normal play > ? leading to the loss of 6 tricks. But since the defense did not find the > heart lead declarer has twelve toptricks. How would BLML rule? > > Rob > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090504/4d81e5c5/attachment-0001.html From adam at irvine.com Mon May 4 22:16:22 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 13:16:22 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 May 2009 21:45:16 +0200." <001c01c9ccf0$dfa3a170$9eeae450$@nl> Message-ID: <200905042002.NAA30205@mailhub.irvine.com> Rob Bosman wrote: > How would you rule? > > > > The contract is 4NT played by South - something went obviously wrong in the > bidding... > > > > KQJ76 > 9872 > KQ4 > 9 > > T8 54 > KQT AJ6543 > 9872 3 > Q532 J876 > > A932 > - > AJT65 > AKT4 > > West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and King. Declarer now plays spade to the > King and Spade Queen. When seeing that both defenders follow suit on the > Queen, he tables his hand, stating that he will ruff two hearts and discard > the other two on the diamonds, making all tricks. Declarers mindset was > obviously that he was playing a spade contract (which he did not deny). He > has twelve top-tricks. At the table the TD ruled that given the fact that > declarer thought he was playing spades a heart continuation in trick 4 is a > normal play - leading to the loss of 6 tricks. But since the defense did not > find the heart lead declarer has twelve toptricks. How would BLML rule? I'm not sure. But I wanted to point something out: that in a claim like this (assuming the contract really were played in spades), a statement like "I'm going to ruff two hearts in dummy" is more of statement of "This is what's eventually going to happen to my heart losers, sooner or later", as opposed to a statement of particular line of play. In fact, there is *never* a line of play that can start with declarer ruffing two hearts in dummy---he has to get back to his hand before ruffing the second one. So a statement like that can't really be a literal indication of the order of the tricks that he intends to take. With that in mind, I could see "down 1" as the ruling. After the first three tricks, declarer runs winners, including the second club. He then tries to ruff a club in his hand so that he can ruff the heart, and at that point the defense takes the rest after pointing out that he's not really playing in spades. That's probably the way I'd play it if I were forced to play the hand out and thought I was playing in spades; it would seem unnatural to me to take my ruffs first. But that's probably not a good basis for a claim ruling. Some other player *might* ruff the hearts first, so I don't object to "down 3" either. I don't think "making 6" can be a correct ruling, though; declarer thought he was playing in spades, and we have to assume that declarer would play as if he were playing in spades until forced to learn otherwise, and taking his 12 top tricks is not something he would do if playing in spades. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 4 22:33:34 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:33:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C0D3640-56C1-49E4-B51A-C3CA401C4299@starpower.net> On May 4, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Jack Rhind wrote: > My general philosophy with these situations is that I do not accept > mis-pulls that are not the immediately adjacent bid, i.e. I would > accept the > 5C/5D mis-pull or the 4C/5C but not a change of row and column in the > bid-box. I fully realize that there may be occasional cases where > the person > may really have meant to pull 4D but pulled 5C in mistake but it is > just too > hard to cut through the tape to determine whether that is really what > happened. If you allow one then you get trapped into the > consistency or > lack-there-of thing that I really try to avoid. In a pairs game, the row-column thing should work for North-South players, but I see lots of mispulls caused by traveling pairs leaving the bid cards in the bid box disarranged. (I personally make a habit when sitting E-W to check out the bid box every time I arrive at a table, and have to put the bid cards back in their proper order about as often as not.) (I've often suspected that the folks who shove their bids randomly back any old place in their bid box on the last hand before leaving the table are the same ones who don't flush in the public loos.) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From tedying at yahoo.com Mon May 4 22:47:26 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: <200905042002.NAA30205@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200905042002.NAA30205@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <399281.21412.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Adam Beneschan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 4:16:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claiming principles.. Rob Bosman wrote: > How would you rule? > > > > The contract is 4NT played by South - something went obviously wrong in the > bidding... > > > > KQJ76 > 9872 > KQ4 > 9 > > T8 54 > KQT AJ6543 > 9872 3 > Q532 J876 > > A932 > - > AJT65 > AKT4 > > West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and King. Declarer now plays spade to the > King and Spade Queen. When seeing that both defenders follow suit on the > Queen, he tables his hand, stating that he will ruff two hearts and discard > the other two on the diamonds, making all tricks. Declarers mindset was > obviously that he was playing a spade contract (which he did not deny). He > has twelve top-tricks. At the table the TD ruled that given the fact that > declarer thought he was playing spades a heart continuation in trick 4 is a > normal play - leading to the loss of 6 tricks. But since the defense did not > find the heart lead declarer has twelve toptricks. How would BLML rule? I'm not sure. But I wanted to point something out: that in a claim like this (assuming the contract really were played in spades), a statement like "I'm going to ruff two hearts in dummy" is more of statement of "This is what's eventually going to happen to my heart losers, sooner or later", as opposed to a statement of particular line of play. In fact, there is *never* a line of play that can start with declarer ruffing two hearts in dummy---he has to get back to his hand before ruffing the second one. So a statement like that can't really be a literal indication of the order of the tricks that he intends to take. With that in mind, I could see "down 1" as the ruling. After the first three tricks, declarer runs winners, including the second club. He then tries to ruff a club in his hand so that he can ruff the heart, and at that point the defense takes the rest after pointing out that he's not really playing in spades. That's probably the way I'd play it if I were forced to play the hand out and thought I was playing in spades; it would seem unnatural to me to take my ruffs first. But that's probably not a good basis for a claim ruling. Some other player *might* ruff the hearts first, so I don't object to "down 3" either. I don't think "making 6" can be a correct ruling, though; declarer thought he was playing in spades, and we have to assume that declarer would play as if he were playing in spades until forced to learn otherwise, and taking his 12 top tricks is not something he would do if playing in spades. -- Adam TTY> I'm not sure that I agree with this. Law 70.A does specifically say: "but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." so if there is a discrepency over when such a play would be made, I think the argument can be made that declarer would immediately try to take one ruff and hence would be down three. Additionally, Law 70.D.1 says: "1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Since declarer did not state in what order he would play tricks, I think it is perfectly normal (albeit careless) to take one immediately ruff before playing on a long side suit. When you think that you have all the rest of the tricks including outstanding trumps, there is no danger in taking the ruff first, middle or last. There is no urgency to run side winners first before taking a known winning ruff. With no stated order of taking the tricks, taking a ruff since declarer was already in the dummy is perfectly normal and acceptable hence, I do think that down three is the correct ruling when the declarer has clearly forgotten what contract it is. Note, that declarer could have stated that he was going to run winners and ruff his losers at the end, which would then give weight to the down one ruling. But in this case, I would resolve trick order "against the claimer." -Ted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090504/0c92b41d/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Mon May 4 22:53:10 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 13:53:10 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 May 2009 13:47:26 PDT." <399281.21412.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200905042038.NAA30459@mailhub.irvine.com> Ted Ying wrote something that looks like: > =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Adam Beneschan m at irvine.com>=0ATo: Bridge Laws Mailing List =0ASent: Monda= > y, May 4, 2009 4:16:22 PM=0ASubject: Re: [BLML] Claiming principles..=0A=0A= > =0ARob Bosman wrote:=0A=0A> How would you rule?=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> The con= > tract is 4NT played by South - something went obviously wrong in the=0A> bi= > dding...=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> KQJ76=0A> = > 9872=0A> KQ4=0A= > > 9=0A> =0A> T8 = > 54=0A> KQT = > AJ6543=0A> 9872 = > 3=0A> Q532 = > J876=0A> =0A> A932=0A> = > -=0A> AJT65=0A> = > AKT4=0A> =0A> West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and Ki= I'm sure that this is an intelligent and thoughtful response to my post, but it will take me some time to figure out just what it is. I thought this was a text-only mailing list? -- Adam From Arbhuston at aol.com Mon May 4 22:51:54 2009 From: Arbhuston at aol.com (Arbhuston at aol.com) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:51:54 EDT Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. Message-ID: Declarer's claim that he would ruff two hearts when only one is necessary is an indication to me that he is anxious to get the heart ruffs going. I think that this is a case in which 70 A's urging to make an equitable ruling is superceded by its qualification to award doubtful tricks to the non-claimer. Certainly there is nothing abnormal about starting the heart ruffing immediately. I guess that I am in the -6 group. Michael Huston In a message dated 5/4/2009 3:16:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time, adam at irvine.com writes: Rob Bosman wrote: > How would you rule? > > > > The contract is 4NT played by South - something went obviously wrong in the > bidding... > > > > KQJ76 > 9872 > KQ4 > 9 > > T8 54 > KQT AJ6543 > 9872 3 > Q532 J876 > > A932 > - > AJT65 > AKT4 > > West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and King. Declarer now plays spade to the > King and Spade Queen. When seeing that both defenders follow suit on the > Queen, he tables his hand, stating that he will ruff two hearts and discard > the other two on the diamonds, making all tricks. Declarers mindset was > obviously that he was playing a spade contract (which he did not deny). He > has twelve top-tricks. At the table the TD ruled that given the fact that > declarer thought he was playing spades a heart continuation in trick 4 is a > normal play - leading to the loss of 6 tricks. But since the defense did not > find the heart lead declarer has twelve toptricks. How would BLML rule? I'm not sure. But I wanted to point something out: that in a claim like this (assuming the contract really were played in spades), a statement like "I'm going to ruff two hearts in dummy" is more of statement of "This is what's eventually going to happen to my heart losers, sooner or later", as opposed to a statement of particular line of play. In fact, there is *never* a line of play that can start with declarer ruffing two hearts in dummy---he has to get back to his hand before ruffing the second one. So a statement like that can't really be a literal indication of the order of the tricks that he intends to take. With that in mind, I could see "down 1" as the ruling. After the first three tricks, declarer runs winners, including the second club. He then tries to ruff a club in his hand so that he can ruff the heart, and at that point the defense takes the rest after pointing out that he's not really playing in spades. That's probably the way I'd play it if I were forced to play the hand out and thought I was playing in spades; it would seem unnatural to me to take my ruffs first. But that's probably not a good basis for a claim ruling. Some other player *might* ruff the hearts first, so I don't object to "down 3" either. I don't think "making 6" can be a correct ruling, though; declarer thought he was playing in spades, and we have to assume that declarer would play as if he were playing in spades until forced to learn otherwise, and taking his 12 top tricks is not something he would do if playing in spades. -- Adam _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml **************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090504/e07d79cb/attachment-0001.html From john at asimere.com Mon May 4 22:59:14 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 21:59:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. References: <200905042002.NAA30205@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <655E85FD421B477DB0C61441885C2F24@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claiming principles.. > > Rob Bosman wrote: > >> How would you rule? >> >> >> >> The contract is 4NT played by South - something went obviously wrong in >> the >> bidding... >> >> >> >> KQJ76 >> 9872 >> KQ4 >> 9 >> >> T8 54 >> KQT AJ6543 >> 9872 3 >> Q532 J876 >> >> A932 >> - >> AJT65 >> AKT4 He seems to have 5S, 5D , 2C and a H ruff. So he'd ruff a H and claim. Down 5. Next case. John >> >> West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and King. Declarer now plays spade to the >> King and Spade Queen. When seeing that both defenders follow suit on the >> Queen, he tables his hand, stating that he will ruff two hearts and >> discard >> the other two on the diamonds, making all tricks. Declarers mindset was >> obviously that he was playing a spade contract (which he did not deny). >> He >> has twelve top-tricks. At the table the TD ruled that given the fact that >> declarer thought he was playing spades a heart continuation in trick 4 is >> a >> normal play - leading to the loss of 6 tricks. But since the defense did >> not >> find the heart lead declarer has twelve toptricks. How would BLML rule? > > I'm not sure. But I wanted to point something out: that in a claim > like this (assuming the contract really were played in spades), a > statement like "I'm going to ruff two hearts in dummy" is more of > statement of "This is what's eventually going to happen to my heart > losers, sooner or later", as opposed to a statement of particular line > of play. In fact, there is *never* a line of play that can start with > declarer ruffing two hearts in dummy---he has to get back to his hand > before ruffing the second one. So a statement like that can't really > be a literal indication of the order of the tricks that he intends to > take. > > With that in mind, I could see "down 1" as the ruling. After the > first three tricks, declarer runs winners, including the second club. > He then tries to ruff a club in his hand so that he can ruff the > heart, and at that point the defense takes the rest after pointing out > that he's not really playing in spades. That's probably the way I'd > play it if I were forced to play the hand out and thought I was > playing in spades; it would seem unnatural to me to take my ruffs > first. But that's probably not a good basis for a claim ruling. Some > other player *might* ruff the hearts first, so I don't object to "down > 3" either. I don't think "making 6" can be a correct ruling, though; > declarer thought he was playing in spades, and we have to assume that > declarer would play as if he were playing in spades until forced to > learn otherwise, and taking his 12 top tricks is not something he > would do if playing in spades. > > -- Adam > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tedying at yahoo.com Mon May 4 23:04:53 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: <399281.21412.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <200905042002.NAA30205@mailhub.irvine.com> <399281.21412.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <295625.36059.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hmmm....take 2. I'm sorry--I don't know what happened that it got all garbled. My copy came out looking normal. Here's hoping that take 2 comes out clean. -Ted. ________________________________ From: Ted Ying To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 4:47:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claiming principles.. ________________________________ From: Adam Beneschan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 4:16:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claiming principles.. Rob Bosman wrote: > How would you rule? > > > > The contract is 4NT played by South - something went obviously wrong in the > bidding... > > > > KQJ76 > 9872 > KQ4 > 9 > > T8 54 > KQT AJ6543 > 9872 3 > Q532 J876 > > A932 > - > AJT65 > AKT4 > > West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and King. Declarer now plays spade to the > King and Spade Queen. When seeing that both defenders follow suit on the > Queen, he tables his hand, stating that he will ruff two hearts and discard > the other two on the diamonds, making all tricks. Declarers mindset was > obviously that he was playing a spade contract (which he did not deny). He > has twelve top-tricks. At the table the TD ruled that given the fact that > declarer thought he was playing spades a heart continuation in trick 4 is a > normal play - leading to the loss of 6 tricks. But since the defense did not > find the heart lead declarer has twelve toptricks. How would BLML rule? I'm not sure. But I wanted to point something out: that in a claim like this (assuming the contract really were played in spades), a statement like "I'm going to ruff two hearts in dummy" is more of statement of "This is what's eventually going to happen to my heart losers, sooner or later", as opposed to a statement of particular line of play. In fact, there is *never* a line of play that can start with declarer ruffing two hearts in dummy---he has to get back to his hand before ruffing the second one. So a statement like that can't really be a literal indication of the order of the tricks that he intends to take. With that in mind, I could see "down 1" as the ruling. After the first three tricks, declarer runs winners, including the second club. He then tries to ruff a club in his hand so that he can ruff the heart, and at that point the defense takes the rest after pointing out that he's not really playing in spades. That's probably the way I'd play it if I were forced to play the hand out and thought I was playing in spades; it would seem unnatural to me to take my ruffs first. But that's probably not a good basis for a claim ruling. Some other player *might* ruff the hearts first, so I don't object to "down 3" either. I don't think "making 6" can be a correct ruling, though; declarer thought he was playing in spades, and we have to assume that declarer would play as if he were playing in spades until forced to learn otherwise, and taking his 12 top tricks is not something he would do if playing in spades. -- Adam TTY> I'm not sure that I agree with this. Law 70.A does specifically say: "but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." so if there is a discrepency over when such a play would be made, I think the argument can be made that declarer would immediately try to take one ruff and hence would be down three. Additionally, Law 70.D.1 says: "1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Since declarer did not state in what order he would play tricks, I think it is perfectly normal (albeit careless) to take one immediately ruff before playing on a long side suit. When you think that you have all the rest of the tricks including outstanding trumps, there is no danger in taking the ruff first, middle or last. There is no urgency to run side winners first before taking a known winning ruff. With no stated order of taking the tricks, taking a ruff since declarer was already in the dummy is perfectly normal and acceptable hence, I do think that down three is the correct ruling when the declarer has clearly forgotten what contract it is. Note, that declarer could have stated that he was going to run winners and ruff his losers at the end, which would then give weight to the down one ruling. But in this case, I would resolve trick order "against the claimer." -Ted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090504/14a6367d/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Mon May 4 23:09:38 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 14:09:38 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 May 2009 16:51:54 EDT." Message-ID: <200905042055.NAA30643@mailhub.irvine.com> Michael Huston wrote: > Declarer's claim that he would ruff two hearts when only one is necessary > is an indication to me that he is anxious to get the heart ruffs > going. Not to me. I think it's an indication that he just isn't awake. Which is about what I'd expect from someone who doesn't even know what contract he's playing. > I think that this is a case in which 70 A's urging to make an > equitable ruling > is superceded by its qualification to award doubtful tricks to the > non-claimer. Certainly there is nothing abnormal about starting the heart > ruffing immediately. I guess that I am in the -6 group. There's no "-6" group; nobody is suggesting "down 6". The ruling is that the defense takes 6 tricks, which is down 3. (John's later post: >> He seems to have 5S, 5D , 2C and a H ruff. So he'd ruff a H and claim. Down >> 5. Next case. John may indicate that he doesn't have any more idea about the contract being played than this declarer did. I don't see how down 5 is a possibility. Down 7, maybe, if you think declarer will throw the club king on the hearts. But down 5, I don't think so.) I think you and Ted are right that ruffing a heart is a possibility and that doubtful points should be ruled against the claimer. My main purpose was to point out that declarer's statement should not *automatically* mean that we assume he's going to try to ruff a heart first; it was more of a statement about how we should interpret claimers' language. I didn't mean to say that we *shouldn't* assume he would try to ruff a heart first. Please note that I did not say that I would rule "down 1"; in real life, I wouldn't object to either a down 1 or a down 3 ruling, and in practice I don't think it would matter anyway, either at matchpoints or at IMPs. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Mon May 4 23:16:04 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 14:16:04 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 May 2009 14:04:53 PDT." <295625.36059.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200905042101.OAA30704@mailhub.irvine.com> Ted wrote: > Hmmm....take 2. I'm sorry--I don't know what happened that it got all garb= > led. My copy came out=0Alooking normal. Here's hoping that take 2 comes o= > ut clean.=0A=0A-Ted.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom:= > Ted Ying =0ATo: Bridge Laws Mailing List g>=0ASent: Monday, May 4, 2009 4:47:26 PM=0ASubject: Re: [BLML] > Claiming pr= ... Sorry, nope. I don't know just how to explain it, though, if you're not a geek like me; your mail reader probably processes things so that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. From my standpoint, though, your message is coming through as a "multipart/mixed" message, with the text in "quoted-printable" format. Maybe this means something to you, maybe not. But if your mail software has an option that enables you to send messages as straight text, that's probably what you should be using. I don't know enough about Windows mail programs to be more specific, but perhaps someone else reading this does know. It's not a serious problem for me, and if I'm the only one affected by it, it's not a big deal (it's pretty easy for me to convert it). But there may be other BLML readers who have problems reading messages in this format. -- Adam From tedying at yahoo.com Mon May 4 23:26:33 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: <200905042101.OAA30704@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200905042101.OAA30704@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <767650.18545.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Adam Beneschan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 5:16:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claiming principles.. Ted wrote: > Hmmm....take 2. I'm sorry--I don't know what happened that it got all garb= > led. My copy came out=0Alooking normal. Here's hoping that take 2 comes o= > ut clean.=0A=0A-Ted.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom:= > Ted Ying =0ATo: Bridge Laws Mailing List g>=0ASent: Monday, May 4, 2009 4:47:26 PM=0ASubject: Re: [BLML] > Claiming pr= ... Sorry, nope. I don't know just how to explain it, though, if you're not a geek like me; your mail reader probably processes things so that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. From my standpoint, though, your message is coming through as a "multipart/mixed" message, with the text in "quoted-printable" format. Maybe this means something to you, maybe not. But if your mail software has an option that enables you to send messages as straight text, that's probably what you should be using. I don't know enough about Windows mail programs to be more specific, but perhaps someone else reading this does know. It's not a serious problem for me, and if I'm the only one affected by it, it's not a big deal (it's pretty easy for me to convert it). But there may be other BLML readers who have problems reading messages in this format. -- Adam ________________________________ Unfortunately, I'm using Yahoo! mail and not using a good text-based mail client. And unfortunately, it doesn't give me a choice of format whether text, HTML, or multi-part mixed; it selects its own default. One last try, just cutting and pasting my text from the previous messages. Last try and sorry for the multiple copies to the whole list. -Ted. TTY> I'm not sure that I agree with this. Law 70.A does specifically say: "but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." so if there is a discrepency over when such a play would be made, I think the argument can be made that declarer would immediately try to take one ruff and hence would be down three. Additionally, Law 70.D.1 says: "1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Since declarer did not state in what order he would play tricks, I think it is perfectly normal (albeit careless) to take one immediately ruff before playing on a long side suit. When you think that you have all the rest of the tricks including outstanding trumps, there is no danger in taking the ruff first, middle or last. There is no urgency to run side winners first before taking a known winning ruff. With no stated order of taking the tricks, taking a ruff since declarer was already in the dummy is perfectly normal and acceptable hence, I do think that down three is the correct ruling when the declarer has clearly forgotten what contract it is. Note, that declarer could have stated that he was going to run winners and ruff his losers at the end, which would then give weight to the down one ruling. But in this case, I would resolve trick order "against the claimer." -Ted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090504/019455d7/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon May 4 23:34:01 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 23:34:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <49FF19D8.9070205@ulb.ac.be> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> <49FF19D8.9070205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002a01c9cd00$0b196ec0$214c4c40$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > You must make your ruling according to your "investigation" of the events > > that took place and not from revealing what cards the player holds. > > > > I have for instance had situations that quite obviously at the time were > > "slip of the hand", nobody doubted or challenged that. But afterwards it > > turned out that the player had actually intended (and thus replaced his call > > with) a deliberate misbid AKA a psychic call! > > > Sure, but I'll disallow the claim that the replacement bid was a psyche. > Just too easy. HUH ? ? ? ? ? He claimed "slip of the hand". Circumstances were such that nobody questioned his assertion that it was a "slip of the hand", in fact everybody agreed that his body language and everything confirmed a "slip of the hand". But if you had investigated his card holdings you would never have believed that he really wanted to make the call he said he wanted to make. Sven From adam at irvine.com Mon May 4 23:37:59 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 14:37:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 May 2009 14:26:33 PDT." <767650.18545.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200905042123.OAA30896@mailhub.irvine.com> > Unfortunately, I'm using Yahoo! > mail and not using a good text-based mail client. > And unfortunately, it > doesn't give me a choice of format whether text, HTML, or > multi-part mixed; > it selects its own default. > > One last try, just cutting and pasting my text > from the previous messages. Last > try and sorry for the multiple copies to > the whole list. > -Ted. Still didn't work. Like I said, though, it's not a serious problem for me. Unfortunately, I'm sort of a dinosaur, and the Yahoo! programmers are all probably kids who've never even heard of things like punch cards or magnetic tape reels, and so it would never occur to them that they might need to write software that actually works together with older software that was likely written back when their only knowledge of technology was that big square box that magically showed pictures of Big Bird and Elmo when Mommy pressed a button...... OK, done ranting for now. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 5 00:16:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 08:16:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: +=+ So each tournament requires a supply of flamingos and hedgehogs. +=+ In the notorious film "Pink Flamingos" the character Babs Johnson said: "I haven't fallen in love for three whole days!" Imps Dlr: East Vul: Both You, East, hold: K65 --- AKJT97653 T The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- Pass(1) 1H Pass 2H 5D 4H (2) X (3) Pass ? (1) Only 11 hcp (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic West Question 1: Is the negative fact that pard did not summon the Director authorised information for you? Question 2: If indeed pard's negative action is UI to you, which of your logical alternatives remain Lawful logical alternatives? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Hideous Hedgehog -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 May 5 01:04:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 09:04:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49F98F3A.3070205@skynet.be> Message-ID: May 2009 ABF Newsletter, page 15: At Coolangatta today, we were playing a Howell movement, and the director was called to the table next to ours. The pairs had moved and bid a board when they discovered that one pair was sitting NE and the other SW. They didn't even notice that their partner was not their partner until the bidding was over and they started to play the board. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Tue May 5 02:15:53 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 19:15:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <200905041935.n44JZa7C024129@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200905041935.n44JZa7C024129@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <49FF8539.1000304@nhcc.net> > John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : >> "Stop Double is permitted, > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Okay, but's a change of mind, isn't it ? So what? If no call is made in the first place, there's no change of call to rule on. The player can do whatever he wants, including change his mind. (There might be UI, of course.) In the ACBL, a call isn't "made" until the bidding card is laid on the table. (The rule is similar to that for declarer's played card but not, alas, identical.) So a player can take a bidding card out of the box, wave it around, and then replace it in the box and make a different call. (In practice I've never seen anything like this happen, but it could.) The advantage of this rule is that a player can take a bidding card out of the box, give it a careful look, and place it on the table only if it's the one he wants. If not, he can pick a different call, and there's no need for any L25 mind-reading. > Here is one live case. Your hand is : AQJxx - Kx - AJxx - xx. > 1D 1H ? > > You wanted to bid 2S, pulled out a Stop card, then realized that it > would be weak *in competition*. So you wait until they ask you to bid, > and exclaim "but I dis call ! I doubled one hour ago !" Why go through all this nonsense? "Stop" isn't a call. Just pick up the stop card and make whatever call you want. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue May 5 01:25:48 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 01:25:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: <295625.36059.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <200905042002.NAA30205@mailhub.irvine.com> <399281.21412.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <295625.36059.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49FF797C.8080704@aol.com> This may be of severely limited interest since I understand nothing about computers but, for what it is worth, all of Ted Ying's postings were perfectly legible on my screen. Perhaps the problem is in the computer of the fellow who received it garbled. JE Ted Ying schrieb: > > Hmmm....take 2. I'm sorry--I don't know what happened that it got all > garbled. My copy came out > looking normal. Here's hoping that take 2 comes out clean. > > -Ted. > > *From:* Ted Ying > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2009 4:47:26 PM > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Claiming principles.. > > > > *From:* Adam Beneschan > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2009 4:16:22 PM > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Claiming principles.. > > > Rob Bosman wrote: > > > How would you rule? > > > > > > > > The contract is 4NT played by South - something went obviously wrong > in the > > bidding... > > > > > > > > KQJ76 > > 9872 > > KQ4 > > 9 > > > > T8 54 > > KQT AJ6543 > > 9872 3 > > Q532 J876 > > > > A932 > > - > > AJT65 > > AKT4 > > > > West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and King. Declarer now plays spade to the > > King and Spade Queen. When seeing that both defenders follow suit on the > > Queen, he tables his hand, stating that he will ruff two hearts and > discard > > the other two on the diamonds, making all tricks. Declarers mindset was > > obviously that he was playing a spade contract (which he did not > deny). He > > has twelve top-tricks. At the table the TD ruled that given the fact that > > declarer thought he was playing spades a heart continuation in trick > 4 is a > > normal play - leading to the loss of 6 tricks. But since the defense > did not > > find the heart lead declarer has twelve toptricks. How would BLML rule? > > I'm not sure. But I wanted to point something out: that in a claim > like this (assuming the contract really were played in spades), a > statement like "I'm going to ruff two hearts in dummy" is more of > statement of "This is what's eventually going to happen to my heart > losers, sooner or later", as opposed to a statement of particular line > of play. In fact, there is *never* a line of play that can start with > declarer ruffing two hearts in dummy---he has to get back to his hand > before ruffing the second one. So a statement like that can't really > be a literal indication of the order of the tricks that he intends to > take. > > With that in mind, I could see "down 1" as the ruling. After the > first three tricks, declarer runs winners, including the second club. > He then tries to ruff a club in his hand so that he can ruff the > heart, and at that point the defense takes the rest after pointing out > that he's not really playing in spades. That's probably the way I'd > play it if I were forced to play the hand out and thought I was > playing in spades; it would seem unnatural to me to take my ruffs > first. But that's probably not a good basis for a claim ruling. Some > other player *might* ruff the hearts first, so I don't object to "down > 3" either. I don't think "making 6" can be a correct ruling, though; > declarer thought he was playing in spades, and we have to assume that > declarer would play as if he were playing in spades until forced to > learn otherwise, and taking his 12 top tricks is not something he > would do if playing in spades. > > -- Adam > > TTY> I'm not sure that I agree with this. Law 70.A does specifically > say: > > "but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved > against the claimer." > > so if there is a discrepency over when such a play would be > made, I think > the argument can be made that declarer would immediately try > to take one > ruff and hence would be down three. > > Additionally, Law 70.D.1 says: > "1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful > line of play not > embraced in the original clarification statement if there > is an alternative > normal* line of play that would be less successful. > > * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play > that would be > careless or inferior for the class of player involved." > > Since declarer did not state in what order he would play > tricks, I think it is > perfectly normal (albeit careless) to take one immediately > ruff before playing > on a long side suit. When you think that you have all the > rest of the tricks > including outstanding trumps, there is no danger in taking the > ruff first, middle > or last. There is no urgency to run side winners first before > taking a known > winning ruff. With no stated order of taking the tricks, > taking a ruff since > declarer was already in the dummy is perfectly normal and > acceptable hence, > I do think that down three is the correct ruling when the > declarer has clearly > forgotten what contract it is. Note, that declarer could have > stated that he > was going to run winners and ruff his losers at the end, which > would then give > weight to the down one ruling. But in this case, I would > resolve trick order > "against the claimer." > > -Ted. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 5 02:36:28 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 20:36:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <097B9F36-6399-4EF9-AA8E-6CE08EACE70C@starpower.net> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <097B9F36-6399-4EF9-AA8E-6CE08EACE70C@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 May 2009 09:42:51 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 4, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > >> The bidding has gone >> >> N S >> 1D 1H >> 1NT 4C >> 5C >> >> At this point North (without calling the director) changes his call >> (after only a >> very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding >> card by mistake >> (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the >> director. North repeats >> to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." >> >> How should the director rule? > > Either way, of course. This isn't a matter of law or bridge > judgment, but of simple fact: either he mispulled or he didn't. You > decide. Talk to the players, ask them to reproduce the action, check > the deal to see if a 5C call might make sense, whatever; do your best > to ferret out a justifiable finding, make it, and move on. IMO, you can think of it however you want, but it should not be portrayed to the players as trying to decide the truth. If you decide against North and say you think he didn't mispull, you are then calling him a liar. That's a bad idea, and putting yourself in that position is a bad idea. IMO. For the same reason and more, I wouldn't take North aside and ask him what he really meant to do. First, it is self-serving unverifiable testimony. Allowing that gives an advantage to liars (and loses my respect). Second, it implies that the testimony is relevant, which puts you back in the position of calling North a liar if you rule against him. So I would look at the auction and how likely that was to be a mispull versus a change of mind. Fortunately, the ACBL has clarified that it must be very good evidence for a mispull, so I don't think this comes close to qualifying for that. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 5 09:16:59 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 17:16:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] good-bad (or imperfect) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <80077DE2-AAA0-441B-9C80-E9BEBBABEA19@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: [snip] >In my milieu, I'd certainly accept as general bridge knowledge the >principle that in an undiscussed non-forcing situation, bidding >shows more than passing. "Every general rule has at least one exception, including this general rule." Richard Hills quibbles: In my milieu, if my pard opens a weak 1NT opening - (Pass) - Pass, then my Pass = guaranteeing at least a modicum of high cards. In my milieu, if my pard opens a weak 1NT opening - (Pass) - 2C, then my 2C non-forcing Stayman = guaranteeing at least a yarborough. This is because many of the players in my milieu, while properly doubling a weak 1NT for penalties (rather than a DONT or Toxic conventional takeout action they might employ as the meaning of a double versus a strong 1NT), choose to improperly define a double of Stayman as always lead-directing for clubs. The point of course, as Bob Geller noted in his Martian thought experiment, is that one cannot assume that one's ghastly opponents share one's Law 40B6(a) "knowledge and experience of matters generally known" unless and until one has frequently played against those ghastly opponents during Christmases Past. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 5 09:56:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 09:56:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Claiming principles.. In-Reply-To: <001c01c9ccf0$dfa3a170$9eeae450$@nl> References: <001c01c9ccf0$dfa3a170$9eeae450$@nl> Message-ID: <49FFF11A.70706@skynet.be> Rob Bosman wrote: > How would you rule? > > > > The contract is 4NT played by South ? something went obviously wrong in > the bidding... > > > > KQJ76 > > 9872 > > KQ4 > > 9 > > T8 54 > > KQT AJ6543 > > 9872 3 > > Q532 J876 > > A932 > > - > > AJT65 > > AKT4 > > > > West started Club 3 for 9, Jack and King. Declarer now plays spade to > the King and Spade Queen. When seeing that both defenders follow suit on > the Queen, he tables his hand, stating that he will ruff two hearts and > discard the other two on the diamonds, making all tricks. Declarers > mindset was obviously that he was playing a spade contract (which he did > not deny). He has twelve top-tricks. At the table the TD ruled that > given the fact that declarer thought he was playing spades a heart > continuation in trick 4 is a normal play ? leading to the loss of 6 > tricks. But since the defense did not find the heart lead declarer has > twelve toptricks. How would BLML rule? > Simple. You give to claimer what he could have made on the actual deal - which is what the Director did. Six tricks to EW. To this player, playing a heart at trick four is a "normal" play. L70D1 says we don't accept any more successful line than this "normal" one. I wonder how Grattan rules this - or rather, how he defends his ruling from the lawbook with his definition of "normal". Herman. > > > Rob > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 5 09:55:59 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 09:55:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49FFF10F.3030704@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > May 2009 ABF Newsletter, page 15: > > At Coolangatta today, we were playing a Howell > movement, and the director was called to the table next > to ours. The pairs had moved and bid a board when > they discovered that one pair was sitting NE and the > other SW. They didn't even notice that their partner > was not their partner until the bidding was over and > they started to play the board. > Thank you. At last I know what the first sentence of L12C1 might refer to. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 5 09:59:49 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 09:59:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49FFF1F5.80305@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > +=+ So each tournament requires a supply of flamingos and hedgehogs. +=+ > > In the notorious film "Pink Flamingos" the character Babs Johnson said: > > "I haven't fallen in love for three whole days!" > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > You, East, hold: > > K65 > --- > AKJT97653 > T > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- Pass(1) > 1H Pass 2H 5D > 4H (2) X (3) Pass ? > > (1) Only 11 hcp > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic West > AG : or maybe you're slightly dysscriptic (Croatian last name ?) > Question 1: Is the negative fact that pard did not summon the Director > authorised information for you? > AG : which information ? To me, it could well be that partner accepted the insufficient 4H bid because he wants to double them and thinks South won't substitute 5H. Surely this is AI. Best regards lain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 5 11:09:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:09:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49FFF10F.3030704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004601c9cd64$5dcfc150$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > May 2009 ABF Newsletter, page 15: > > At Coolangatta today, we were playing a Howell > movement, and the director was called to the table next > to ours. The pairs had moved and bid a board when > they discovered that one pair was sitting NE and the > other SW. They didn't even notice that their partner > was not their partner until the bidding was over and > they started to play the board. > Thank you. At last I know what the first sentence of L12C1 might refer to. > +=+ Could you clarify this remark for me, please? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 5 11:32:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:32:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? References: <200905041935.n44JZa7C024129@cfa.harvard.edu> <49FF8539.1000304@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <004701c9cd64$5dfaa1e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In the ACBL, a call isn't "made" until the bidding card is laid on the table. (The rule is similar to that for declarer's played card but not, alas, identical.) So a player can take a bidding card out of the box, wave it around, and then replace it in the box and make a different call. (In practice I've never seen anything like this happen, but it could.) The advantage of this rule is that a player can take a bidding card out of the box, give it a careful look, and place it on the table only if it's the one he wants. If not, he can pick a different call, and there's no need for any L25 mind-reading. < +=+ David Burn or John Probst would probably know, but I think there is past experience of this kind of thing in England. ................................................................................................... For comparison: Extracts from the WBF General Conditions of Contest (2009) :- "A call is considered to have been made when the bidding card(s) is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but Law 25 may apply and if a player's mind was elsewhere as he makes an unintended call the 'pause for thought' should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error)." "If screens are in use the foregoing is modified - see section 3" "With screens in use a call is considered 'made' when placed on the tray and released." ................................................................................................ In WBF Championships screens are in general mandatory. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 5 12:52:41 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 12:52:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004601c9cd64$5dcfc150$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49FFF10F.3030704@ulb.ac.be> <004601c9cd64$5dcfc150$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A001A79.106@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:55 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> May 2009 ABF Newsletter, page 15: >> >> At Coolangatta today, we were playing a Howell >> movement, and the director was called to the table next >> to ours. The pairs had moved and bid a board when >> they discovered that one pair was sitting NE and the >> other SW. They didn't even notice that their partner >> was not their partner until the bidding was over and >> they started to play the board. >> >> > Thank you. At last I know what the first sentence of > L12C1 might refer to. > > +=+ Could you clarify this remark for me, please? > It was difficult for me to find a case where everybody would agree that 'no result at all can be obtained' . But this surely is a good example. I might even mention it to some junior TDs who wonder what this might be. Sorry if the law number doesn't coincide ; I'm presently at my office. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 5 12:57:21 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 12:57:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <004701c9cd64$5dfaa1e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200905041935.n44JZa7C024129@cfa.harvard.edu> <49FF8539.1000304@nhcc.net> <004701c9cd64$5dfaa1e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A001B91.6060603@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:15 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? > > > In the ACBL, a call isn't "made" until the bidding card is laid on the > table. (The rule is similar to that for declarer's played card but not, > alas, identical.) So a player can take a bidding card out of the box, > wave it around, and then replace it in the box and make a different > call. (In practice I've never seen anything like this happen, but it > could.) Surely it could. However different the case might be, we're still in the same position of having to decide whether picking the card was inadvertent (no penalty of any kind) or whether the player had some afterthoughts (no penalty at this stage, but UI created, so might need an adjustment afterwards). > The advantage of this rule is that a player can take a bidding > card out of the box, give it a careful look, and place it on the table > only if it's the one he wants. If not, he can pick a different call, > and there's no need for any L25 mind-reading. > Indeed. And that's more ot less how I proceed, because I'm notoriously unnimble. But once again, the careful look might be part of a change of mind process. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 5 14:00:15 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 08:00:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:16:23 -0400, wrote: > > +=+ So each tournament requires a supply of flamingos and hedgehogs. +=+ > > In the notorious film "Pink Flamingos" the character Babs Johnson said: > > "I haven't fallen in love for three whole days!" > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > You, East, hold: > > K65 > --- > AKJT97653 > T > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- Pass(1) > 1H Pass 2H 5D > 4H (2) X (3) Pass ? > > (1) Only 11 hcp > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic West > > Question 1: Is the negative fact that pard did not summon the Director > authorised information for you? Great question. Reading the lawbook very carefully, the information "arises" from the legal procedures procedures authorized in the laws. So it's authorized. (Or -- whether or not it is AI depends on if the director call is AI, and the director call is obviously AI by L16A1c.) Backatcha: Are the opponents entitled to know whether or not your partner usually calls the director before accepting an insufficient bid? > > Question 2: If indeed pard's negative action is UI to you, which of your > logical alternatives remain Lawful logical alternatives? passing. I assume 3D shows a lot more defense than 5D. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue May 5 14:26:05 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 13:26:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> [Richard.hills] +=+ So each tournament requires a supply of flamingos and hedgehogs. +=+ In the notorious film "Pink Flamingos" the character Babs Johnson said: "I haven't fallen in love for three whole days!" Imps Dlr: East Vul: Both You, East, hold: K65 -- AKJT97653 T The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- Pass(1) 1H Pass 2H 5D 4H (2) X (3) Pass ? (1) Only 11 hcp (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic West Question 1: Is the negative fact that pard did not summon the Director authorised information for you? Question 2: If indeed pard's negative action is UI to you, which of your logical alternatives remain Lawful logical alternatives? [Nigel] IMO ... - After South's insufficient bid, somebody should call the director. - Here there is no UI from West's failure to call the director, because, accepting and doubling the insufficient bid are among West's legal options. - The only question is whether you are allowed to vary your system depending on the option that you choose over an infraction. - According to the new laws, this is legal unless locally banned. - Assuming no local restriction on such variations, for partnerships who seriously consider this issue, double is clearly *penalty* -- even if double of a sufficient bid would have been *cards*. - Obviously, law makers shouldn't provide such options for players over infractions. Admittedly, they are a boon to secretary birds and an intriguing challenge for directors but they are a nightmare for ordinary players. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue May 5 14:30:37 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 14:30:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A00316D.10700@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > +=+ So each tournament requires a supply of flamingos and hedgehogs. +=+ > > In the notorious film "Pink Flamingos" the character Babs Johnson said: > > "I haven't fallen in love for three whole days!" > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > You, East, hold: > > K65 > --- > AKJT97653 > T > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- Pass(1) > 1H Pass 2H 5D > 4H (2) X (3) Pass ? > > (1) Only 11 hcp > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic West > > Question 1: Is the negative fact that pard did not summon the Director > authorised information for you? It seems debatable at best whether any I (let alone AI or UI) is discernible here. Partner chose a bid without taking an option available to him, but perhaps without being aware that something has happened. So what? > > Question 2: If indeed pard's negative action is UI to you, which of your > logical alternatives remain Lawful logical alternatives? Alternatives? What alternatives? I am a passed hand, pard doubled 4H, possibly with 4 trump tricks and an Ace or two. OK, there is no further risk in removing the double, partner will terminate our partnership as soon as my hand becomes known, but at least he will not shoot at me now... What kind of trick question is this? Best regards Matthias > > > Best wishes > > R. J. Hills, Hideous Hedgehog > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 5 14:35:01 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 08:35:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <49FF22D9.20904@ripe.net> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> <49FF22D9.20904@ripe.net> Message-ID: On May 4, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> Oh yes, in this case as well >> >>> - either you disallow the change and they're in trouble anyway ; >>> - or you accept it, which means you think the replacement bid >>> corresopnds to the hand, and that's no news. >> >> You must make your ruling according to your "investigation" of the >> events >> that took place and not from revealing what cards the player holds. > > This is easy to accomplish by taking the player away from the > table, asking > him what he wanted to do and perhaps take a look at his hand to > confirm if > his story is plausible. On return, you tell the table: > > a) You have decided that it was a mispull and allow the correction. > The players now know that the first bid had no relation > whatsoever > with the hand and can ignore it. > b) You have decided that it wasn't and don't allow the correction. > The players now know that the hand has some alternative that the > bidder might have considered and probably better fits the hand, > that isn't very useful information. Where I direct, it is routine for floor directors to carry copies of the hand records, and, when called to a table, to locate and peruse the hand record for the board in question before beginning the process of ascertaining the facts. That leaves them free to take the player's hand into account, or not, without letting the table know whether they have done so. >> I have for instance had situations that quite obviously at the >> time were >> "slip of the hand", nobody doubted or challenged that. But >> afterwards it >> turned out that the player had actually intended (and thus >> replaced his call >> with) a deliberate misbid AKA a psychic call! > > See above, you ask the player away from the table. If he admits > that he > wanted to psyche, then you accept that. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 5 14:43:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:43:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Learning the language Message-ID: <001301c9cd7f$4afc7710$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <4A003539.5000104@t-online.de> Nigel Guthrie schrieb: > [Richard.hills] > +=+ So each tournament requires a supply of flamingos and hedgehogs. +=+ > > In the notorious film "Pink Flamingos" the character Babs Johnson said: > "I haven't fallen in love for three whole days!" > Imps Dlr: East Vul: Both You, East, hold: K65 -- AKJT97653 T > The bidding has gone: > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- Pass(1) > 1H Pass 2H 5D > 4H (2) X (3) Pass ? > (1) Only 11 hcp > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic West > Question 1: Is the negative fact that pard did not summon the Director > authorised information for you? > Question 2: If indeed pard's negative action is UI to you, which of your > logical alternatives remain Lawful logical alternatives? > > [Nigel] > IMO ... > - After South's insufficient bid, somebody should call the director. > - Here there is no UI from West's failure to call the director, because, accepting and doubling the insufficient bid are among West's legal options. > - The only question is whether you are allowed to vary your system depending on the option that you choose over an infraction. > - According to the new laws, this is legal unless locally banned. > - Assuming no local restriction on such variations, for partnerships who seriously consider this issue, double is clearly *penalty* -- even if double of a sufficient bid would have been *cards*. ** What????? ** In which universe could such a double ever be "cards"? That was a diamond preempt. I do not care how many diamonds West thought East has bid, 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever, double is penalty, pure and simple. Is your partner expected to reopen with short hearts after passing as dealer and preempting on his second turn?? Or do you let opps play undoubled if you hold KQ1098? And he may well hold and Ace more, IMP tactics being what they are today. I hope you can explain why you didn`t score 1100, your other pair will want to know.... > - Obviously, law makers shouldn't provide such options for players over infractions. > Admittedly, they are a boon to secretary birds and an intriguing challenge for directors but they are a nightmare for ordinary players. I can`t follow you here, lost me completely. What boon, what nightmare? South bid something, West took exception to that. Happens all the time. So what? This is called playing Bridge, isn't it? By the way, what challenge for directors? The law is very clear here, I would not feel challenged at all. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 5 14:54:17 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 14:54:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A0036F9.1020106@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:16:23 -0400, wrote: > > > Great question. Reading the lawbook very carefully, the information > "arises" from the legal procedures procedures authorized in the laws. So > it's authorized. (Or -- whether or not it is AI depends on if the director > call is AI, and the director call is obviously AI by L16A1c.) > > Backatcha: Are the opponents entitled to know whether or not your partner > usually calls the director before accepting an insufficient bid? > > Good question. The phrase which says you must mention partner's tendencies when relevant (L75C old) concerns only calls and plays, hence I'd say no. BTW, asking whether your partner often acts irregularly would be strange. >> Question 2: If indeed pard's negative action is UI to you, which of your >> logical alternatives remain Lawful logical alternatives? >> > > passing. I assume 3D shows a lot more defense than 5D. > AG : and so does 3H. Partner's eagerness in doubling (he didn't even try fishing them one level higher) strongly suggests passing, BTA so does the double per se. You've got more defense that expected (FWIW, it could have been xx - void - KQJxxxx - QJ10x) and partner doesn't want to play 5D even though you bid them. Anyway, making a fairly descriptive preempt and taking out partner's double is inadvisable, and that's the milder version. Yes, it seems like partner's options were extended by LHO's error cancel - neutral action accept and double - caught behind accept and pass - I'm so glad they hadn't a whack at 5D accept and bid 5D - equivalent of a forcing pass, OK for dianmonds, decide yourself over 5H accept and bid other - slam try We know that you aren't allowed to have an agreement on that, but it seems so "bridge-logical" that I can't find anything wrong with it. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 5 15:04:06 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 15:04:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A003539.5000104@t-online.de> References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> <4A003539.5000104@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A003946.8060806@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Nigel Guthrie schrieb: > >> [Richard.hills] >> +=+ So each tournament requires a supply of flamingos and hedgehogs. +=+ >> >> In the notorious film "Pink Flamingos" the character Babs Johnson said: >> "I haven't fallen in love for three whole days!" >> Imps Dlr: East Vul: Both You, East, hold: K65 -- AKJT97653 T >> The bidding has gone: >> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> --- --- --- Pass(1) >> 1H Pass 2H 5D >> 4H (2) X (3) Pass ? >> (1) Only 11 hcp >> (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for >> a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South >> (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for >> a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic West >> Question 1: Is the negative fact that pard did not summon the Director >> authorised information for you? >> Question 2: If indeed pard's negative action is UI to you, which of your >> logical alternatives remain Lawful logical alternatives? >> >> [Nigel] >> IMO ... >> - After South's insufficient bid, somebody should call the director. >> - Here there is no UI from West's failure to call the director, because, accepting and doubling the insufficient bid are among West's legal options. >> - The only question is whether you are allowed to vary your system depending on the option that you choose over an infraction. >> - According to the new laws, this is legal unless locally banned. >> - Assuming no local restriction on such variations, for partnerships who seriously consider this issue, double is clearly *penalty* -- even if double of a sufficient bid would have been *cards*. >> > > ** What????? ** > In which universe could such a double ever be "cards"? That was a > diamond preempt. AG : Nigel said 'even if', perhaps he should have said 'even when'. 1H p 2NT (balanced raise) 2S Here, double over 3S would perhaps be 'cards', but over 2S it is 'bang', because you don't even dream of RHO bidding 3S if you cancel the bid. > By the way, what challenge for directors? The law is very clear here, I > would not feel challenged at all. > > The challenge would be to ascertain whether the information carried by the choice over the infraction results from an agreement (which might be deemed illicit according to COCs) or from obvious bridge logic. For a double, the answer surely is the latter, but for a bid I'm not that sure. Best regards Alain From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Tue May 5 15:16:44 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 16:16:44 +0300 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A003C3C.1080804@jldata.fi> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > +=+ So each tournament requires a supply of flamingos and hedgehogs. +=+ > > In the notorious film "Pink Flamingos" the character Babs Johnson said: > > "I haven't fallen in love for three whole days!" > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > You, East, hold: > > K65 > --- > AKJT97653 > T > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- Pass(1) > 1H Pass 2H 5D > 4H (2) X (3) Pass ? > > (1) Only 11 hcp > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic West > > Question 1: Is the negative fact that pard did not summon the Director > authorised information for you? > > Yes, it may be so, but only if pard has drawn attention to an irregularity and then doubles. "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity" or if pard's double was very fast. Otherwise, of course not. > Question 2: If indeed pard's negative action is UI to you, which of your > logical alternatives remain Lawful logical alternatives? > > If yes to first question, then pas is suggested, and any other call is lawful. Juuso > Best wishes > > R. J. Hills, Hideous Hedgehog > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 lapinjatka at jldata.fi Tue May 5 15:27:30 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 16:27:30 +0300 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <097B9F36-6399-4EF9-AA8E-6CE08EACE70C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A003EC2.4070008@jldata.fi> Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 04 May 2009 09:42:51 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > >> On May 4, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Robert Geller wrote: >> >> >>> The bidding has gone >>> >>> N S >>> 1D 1H >>> 1NT 4C >>> 5C >>> >>> At this point North (without calling the director) changes his call >>> (after only a >>> very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding >>> card by mistake >>> (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the >>> director. North repeats >>> to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." >>> >>> How should the director rule? >>> >> Either way, of course. This isn't a matter of law or bridge >> judgment, but of simple fact: either he mispulled or he didn't. You >> decide. Talk to the players, ask them to reproduce the action, check >> the deal to see if a 5C call might make sense, whatever; do your best >> to ferret out a justifiable finding, make it, and move on. >> > > IMO, you can think of it however you want, but it should not be portrayed > to the players as trying to decide the truth. If you decide against North > and say you think he didn't mispull, you are then calling him a liar. > That's a bad idea, and putting yourself in that position is a bad idea. > IMO. > > For the same reason and more, I wouldn't take North aside and ask him what > he really meant to do. First, it is self-serving unverifiable testimony. > Allowing that gives an advantage to liars (and loses my respect). Second, > it implies that the testimony is relevant, which puts you back in the > position of calling North a liar if you rule against him. > > So I would look at the auction and how likely that was to be a mispull > versus a change of mind. Fortunately, the ACBL has clarified that it must > be very good evidence for a mispull, so I don't think this comes close to > qualifying for that. > > What then comes close to ACBL rule. If not very fast after placing bidding card to table. Most probably only old East-Germany extremely short time ULB is enough short, if even not ULB, then replacement can be made only before card is in the table. I don't think that this is not big deal. Just hear evidence, don't look anybody's cards, and decide yes or not. Juuso > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 5 14:59:45 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:59:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49FFF10F.3030704@ulb.ac.be><004601c9cd64$5dcfc150$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A001A79.106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c9cd85$6eed9c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:55 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> May 2009 ABF Newsletter, page 15: >> >> At Coolangatta today, we were playing a Howell >> movement, and the director was called to the table next >> to ours. The pairs had moved and bid a board when >> they discovered that one pair was sitting NE and the >> other SW. They didn't even notice that their partner >> was not their partner until the bidding was over and >> they started to play the board. >> >> > Thank you. At last I know what the first sentence of > L12C1 might refer to. > > +=+ Could you clarify this remark for me, please? > It was difficult for me to find a case where everybody would agree that 'no result at all can be obtained' . But this surely is a good example. I might even mention it to some junior TDs who wonder what this might be. Sorry if the law number doesn't coincide ; I'm presently at my office. +=+ Ah, I see. You are linking 12C1 to 12C2(a). Sometimes exposure of information or other circumstances may stymie "normal play of the board". [Law 12A2]. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 5 15:04:24 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:04:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? References: <200905041935.n44JZa7C024129@cfa.harvard.edu> <49FF8539.1000304@nhcc.net><004701c9cd64$5dfaa1e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A001B91.6060603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701c9cd85$6f18a3c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:15 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? > > > In the ACBL, a call isn't "made" until the bidding card is laid on the > table. (The rule is similar to that for declarer's played card but not, > alas, identical.) So a player can take a bidding card out of the box, > wave it around, and then replace it in the box and make a different > call. (In practice I've never seen anything like this happen, but it > could.) Surely it could. However different the case might be, we're still in the same position of having to decide whether picking the card was inadvertent (no penalty of any kind) or whether the player had some afterthoughts (no penalty at this stage, but UI created, so might need an adjustment afterwards). > The advantage of this rule is that a player can take a bidding > card out of the box, give it a careful look, and place it on the table > only if it's the one he wants. If not, he can pick a different call, > and there's no need for any L25 mind-reading. > Indeed. And that's more or less how I proceed, because I'm notoriously unnimble. But once again, the careful look might be part of a change of mind process. < +=+ I do think the Director/AC must make his/its mind up whether an 'unnimble' reaction indicates a pause for thought. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 5 15:28:48 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:28:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000801c9cd85$6f438450$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Nigel] IMO ... - The only question is whether you are allowed to vary your system depending on the option that you choose over an infraction. - According to the new laws, this is legal unless locally banned. - Assuming no local restriction on such variations, for partnerships who seriously consider this issue, double is clearly *penalty* -- even if double of a sufficient bid would have been *cards*. - Obviously, law makers shouldn't provide such options for players over infractions. Admittedly, they are a boon to secretary birds and an intriguing challenge for directors but they are a nightmare for ordinary players. > +=+ The word 'obviously' and what goes with it attribute a situation to the law makers that was not of their making. The law at this point encountered a developing practice in the more expert bridge community. The law makers provided authority for control of such practices according to the environment in which they occur and the wishes of the Regulating Authority. It seems reasonable to me that the environment of a world championship might be suitable for more liberal treatment than is the case in the Bayanbaraat Bridge Club. There was discussion whether the RA's option should be to allow such methods or to disallow them. The coin fell as it did and I accept that Nigel might well have preferred the other side of the coin. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Tue May 5 15:33:04 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 16:33:04 +0300 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004601c9cd64$5dcfc150$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49FFF10F.3030704@ulb.ac.be> <004601c9cd64$5dcfc150$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A004010.7070206@jldata.fi> Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:55 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> May 2009 ABF Newsletter, page 15: >> >> At Coolangatta today, we were playing a Howell >> movement, and the director was called to the table next >> to ours. The pairs had moved and bid a board when >> they discovered that one pair was sitting NE and the >> other SW. They didn't even notice that their partner >> was not their partner until the bidding was over and >> they started to play the board. >> >> > Thank you. At last I know what the first sentence of > L12C1 might refer to. > > +=+ Could you clarify this remark for me, please? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Ahaa, too easy English, I suppose,or perhaps even Hermanish. Juuso > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 5 16:27:19 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 16:27:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <000701c9cd85$6f18a3c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200905041935.n44JZa7C024129@cfa.harvard.edu> <49FF8539.1000304@nhcc.net><004701c9cd64$5dfaa1e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A001B91.6060603@ulb.ac.be> <000701c9cd85$6f18a3c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A004CC7.8070201@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > >> The advantage of this rule is that a player can take a bidding >> card out of the box, give it a careful look, and place it on the table >> only if it's the one he wants. If not, he can pick a different call, >> and there's no need for any L25 mind-reading. >> >> > Indeed. And that's more or less how I proceed, because I'm notoriously > unnimble. But once again, the careful look might be part of a change of > mind process. > < > +=+ I do think the Director/AC must make his/its mind up > whether an 'unnimble' reaction indicates a pause for thought. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > AG : I'm afraid that's precisely the kind of mind-reading exercise that some of us so much fear having to solve. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 5 16:38:40 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 16:38:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A004010.7070206@jldata.fi> References: <49FFF10F.3030704@ulb.ac.be> <004601c9cd64$5dcfc150$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A004010.7070206@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <4A004F70.5070509@ulb.ac.be> Lapinjatka a ?crit : > Grattan wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> also > ********************************** >> "When deciding how much to tell >> Penelope uses her indiscretion." >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:55 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >> >>> May 2009 ABF Newsletter, page 15: >>> >>> At Coolangatta today, we were playing a Howell >>> movement, and the director was called to the table next >>> to ours. The pairs had moved and bid a board when >>> they discovered that one pair was sitting NE and the >>> other SW. They didn't even notice that their partner >>> was not their partner until the bidding was over and >>> they started to play the board. >>> >>> >>> >> Thank you. At last I know what the first sentence of >> L12C1 might refer to. >> >> +=+ Could you clarify this remark for me, please? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > Ahaa, too easy English, I suppose,or perhaps even Hermanish. > Juuso > > AG : sorry, I wanted to learn TFLB in Finnish, but when I learned that 'taking a player away from the table' reads differently whether he was sitting near to the table or touching it, I gave up. More seriously, what's wrong with the formulation ? From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue May 5 17:41:33 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 17:41:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <4A003EC2.4070008@jldata.fi> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <097B9F36-6399-4EF9-AA8E-6CE08EACE70C@starpower.net> <4A003EC2.4070008@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <4A005E2D.2080702@aol.com> What in the world is "East German...ULB"? What does this mean? I have lived in Berlin since 1961. In "East Germany" (the DDR, in English "GDR") bridge was not encouraged. (That is an immense understatement.) Just in case that is of any relevance. JE PS: I can't find ULB on the list of blml abbreviations. Lapinjatka schrieb: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Mon, 04 May 2009 09:42:51 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >>> On May 4, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Robert Geller wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The bidding has gone >>>> >>>> N S >>>> 1D 1H >>>> 1NT 4C >>>> 5C >>>> >>>> At this point North (without calling the director) changes his call >>>> (after only a >>>> very small time) to 4D, stating that he pulled the wrong bidding >>>> card by mistake >>>> (a slip of the hand, not a slip of the mind). EW call the >>>> director. North repeats >>>> to the director his statement that 5C was a "slip of the hand." >>>> >>>> How should the director rule? >>>> >>> Either way, of course. This isn't a matter of law or bridge >>> judgment, but of simple fact: either he mispulled or he didn't. You >>> decide. Talk to the players, ask them to reproduce the action, check >>> the deal to see if a 5C call might make sense, whatever; do your best >>> to ferret out a justifiable finding, make it, and move on. >>> >> IMO, you can think of it however you want, but it should not be portrayed >> to the players as trying to decide the truth. If you decide against North >> and say you think he didn't mispull, you are then calling him a liar. >> That's a bad idea, and putting yourself in that position is a bad idea. >> IMO. >> >> For the same reason and more, I wouldn't take North aside and ask him what >> he really meant to do. First, it is self-serving unverifiable testimony. >> Allowing that gives an advantage to liars (and loses my respect). Second, >> it implies that the testimony is relevant, which puts you back in the >> position of calling North a liar if you rule against him. >> >> So I would look at the auction and how likely that was to be a mispull >> versus a change of mind. Fortunately, the ACBL has clarified that it must >> be very good evidence for a mispull, so I don't think this comes close to >> qualifying for that. >> >> > What then comes close to ACBL rule. If not very fast after placing > bidding card to table. > Most probably only old East-Germany extremely short time ULB is enough > short, if even not ULB, then replacement can be made only before card > is in the table. > I don't think that this is not big deal. Just hear evidence, don't look > anybody's cards, and decide yes or not. > > Juuso > > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue May 5 19:10:14 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 18:10:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? References: <200905041935.n44JZa7C024129@cfa.harvard.edu> <49FF8539.1000304@nhcc.net><004701c9cd64$5dfaa1e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A001B91.6060603@ulb.ac.be><000701c9cd85$6f18a3c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A004CC7.8070201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002701c9cda4$5d6c9ea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? Grattan a ?crit : > >> The advantage of this rule is that a player can take a bidding >> card out of the box, give it a careful look, and place it on the table >> only if it's the one he wants. If not, he can pick a different call, >> and there's no need for any L25 mind-reading. >> >> > Indeed. And that's more or less how I proceed, because I'm notoriously > unnimble. But once again, the careful look might be part of a change of > mind process. > < > +=+ I do think the Director/AC must make his/its mind up > whether an 'unnimble' reaction indicates a pause for thought. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > AG : I'm afraid that's precisely the kind of mind-reading exercise that some of us so much fear having to solve. < +=+ In a game that is all about judgement Directors are appointed to exercise judgement when the laws require it. Experience, their own and that handed on from their elders in the business, equips them remarkably well to make these judgements. I have but little sympathy for players who behave habitually in a way to call into question the basis of their mannerisms. Minds can be read with greater ease than you allow. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue May 5 20:32:33 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 19:32:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c9cd85$6f438450$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> <000801c9cd85$6f438450$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A008641.50809@talktalk.net> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ The word 'obviously' and what goes with it attribute a situation to the law makers that was not of their making. The law at this point encountered a developing practice in the more expert bridge community. The law makers provided authority for control of such practices according to the environment in which they occur and the wishes of the Regulating Authority. It seems reasonable to me that the environment of a world championship might be suitable for more liberal treatment than is the case in the Bayanbaraat Bridge Club. There was discussion whether the RA's option should be to allow such methods or to disallow them. The coin fell as it did and I accept that Nigel might well have preferred the other side of the coin. [Nigel] Grattan is right as far as he goes. IMO, he doesn't go far enough. Bridge law does allow local jurisdictions to restrict the meanings of actions that depend on the legal option that a player chooses after an infraction *but* :) Not all jurisdictions impose restrictions. :) If a jurisdiction does restrict agreements that depend on the option chosen, then it is hard to detect and penalise a transgression. :) Some *but not all* directors seem to believe that, in *any* jurisdiction, it is OK to vary the meaning, depending on the option that you choose, provided that the variant would be obvious even without explicit agreement (For example, whatever your normal agreement, the double of an accepted insufficient bid is *logically* penalty). IMO, it would be simpler if Bridge rules included *no such options* for players. Instead, for example, an insufficient bid would be UI to partner and the offender would have to substitute a pass. Removal of options would also mitigate problems with calls out of turn and illegal calls :) From svenpran at online.no Tue May 5 22:07:51 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 22:07:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> <49FF22D9.20904@ripe.net> Message-ID: <000301c9cdbd$2bd06340$837129c0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............ > Where I direct, it is routine for floor directors to carry copies of > the hand records, and, when called to a table, to locate and peruse > the hand record for the board in question before beginning the > process of ascertaining the facts. That leaves them free to take the > player's hand into account, or not, without letting the table know > whether they have done so. And then the players KNOW that your ruling is most likely biased according to the actual cards held by the player. Sven From tedying at yahoo.com Tue May 5 22:16:23 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <000301c9cdbd$2bd06340$837129c0$@no> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> <49FF22D9.20904@ripe.net> <000301c9cdbd$2bd06340$837129c0$@no> Message-ID: <728169.23111.qm@web53310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 4:07:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............ > Where I direct, it is routine for floor directors to carry copies of > the hand records, and, when called to a table, to locate and peruse > the hand record for the board in question before beginning the > process of ascertaining the facts. That leaves them free to take the > player's hand into account, or not, without letting the table know > whether they have done so. And then the players KNOW that your ruling is most likely biased according to the actual cards held by the player. Sven _______________________________________________ I frequently direct at of one of the games that Eric was describing. Checking the hand records can be done surreptitiously. When I call players away from the table to ask what they intended, what they meant to bid, etc, I usually ask them to stand with their back to the table so that they face away from the other players at their table (and their answers are less likely to be overheard by the opponents or partner). If I feel I need, I can consult the hand record behind the person I am speaking to so that the other players at the table do not know if I am checking the hand record or not. The only person who would know is the person who claims to have made the slip of the hand. -Ted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090505/e26fd097/attachment-0001.html From geller at nifty.com Tue May 5 22:22:22 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 05:22:22 +0900 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <002701c9cda4$5d6c9ea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002701c9cda4$5d6c9ea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <200905052022.AA19031@geller204.nifty.com> Grattan wrote: >+=+ In a game that is all about judgement Directors are appointed >to exercise judgement when the laws require it. Experience, their >own and that handed on from their elders in the business, equips >them remarkably well to make these judgements. I have but little >sympathy for players who behave habitually in a way to call into >question the basis of their mannerisms. Minds can be read with >greater ease than you allow. As the rules now stand the director has to ask the player whether it was a slip of the hand or mind. The player invariably answers that it was the former. If the director doesn't accept this it's tantamount to saying "I don't believe you" or maybe even "you're lying." So the director almost invariably rules "slip of the hand." These are our rules until 2018 but maybe a rethink is needed. -Bob From svenpran at online.no Tue May 5 22:48:29 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 22:48:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <728169.23111.qm@web53310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> <49FF22D9.20904@ripe.net> <000301c9cdbd$2bd06340$837129c0$@no> <728169.23111.qm@web53310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000a01c9cdc2$d8e3ff60$8aabfe20$@no> On Behalf Of Ted Ying ............ On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............ > Where I direct, it is routine for floor directors to carry copies of > the hand records, and, when called to a table, to locate and peruse > the hand record for the board in question before beginning the > process of ascertaining the facts.? That leaves them free to take the > player's hand into account, or not, without letting the table know > whether they have done so. And then the players KNOW that your ruling is most likely biased according to the actual cards held by the player. Sven _______________________________________________ I frequently direct at of one of the games that Eric was describing.? Checking the hand records can be done surreptitiously.? When I call players away from the table to ask what they intended, what they meant to bid, etc, I usually ask them to stand with their back to the table so that they face away from the other players at their table (and their answers are less likely to be overheard by the opponents or partner).? If I feel I need, I can consult the hand record behind the person I am speaking to so that the other players at the table do not know if I am checking the hand record or not.? The only person who would know is the person who claims to have made the slip of the hand. -Ted. Do you seriously believe that the players are unaware of you consulting the hand records when making your ruling? Don't fool yourself! (And please avoid posting to blml in any other format than plain text) Sven From tedying at yahoo.com Tue May 5 22:54:50 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <000a01c9cdc2$d8e3ff60$8aabfe20$@no> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> <49FF22D9.20904@ripe.net> <000301c9cdbd$2bd06340$837129c0$@no> <728169.23111.qm@web53310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <000a01c9cdc2$d8e3ff60$8aabfe20$@no> Message-ID: <895973.52510.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 4:48:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? Do you seriously believe that the players are unaware of you consulting the hand records when making your ruling? Don't fool yourself! (And please avoid posting to blml in any other format than plain text) Sven ________________________________ Unfortunately, the public mail utilities, such as Yahoo! do not give the option of plain text. It is a HTML and Java based mail browser and there are no choices of differing formats. That request essentially comes out to "Please do not post to BLML". The only mail utility that I have that would give me the option of plain text, is unfortunately not an option as NASA now says that we may not sign up for external, non-work related mailing lists such as this via work accounts. And since I don't always (in fact rarely) consult the hand record for most calls of a bidding box error, I do think that they don't know if I am consulting it or not. When you do so maybe one out of 10 rulings, I do think that they will be unaware when it happens. -Ted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090505/a902d280/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Tue May 5 23:09:04 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 14:09:04 -0700 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 May 2009 13:54:50 PDT." <895973.52510.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200905052054.NAA08720@mailhub.irvine.com> Ted wrote: > (And please avoid posting to blml in any other format than plain text) > > Sven > > ________________________________ > > Unfortunately, the public mail utilities, such as Yahoo! do not give > the option of plain text. It is a HTML and Java based mail browser > and there are no choices of differing formats. That request > essentially comes out to "Please do not post to BLML". The only > mail utility that I have that would give me the option of plain > text, is unfortunately not an option as NASA now says that we may > not sign up for external, non-work related mailing lists such as > this via work accounts. Actually, your posts in this thread, although they are still in multipart/mixed format, are not "quoted-printable" and haven't caused the same problem as the earlier ones I complained about. I don't have to take any extra steps to read them. After looking through some of my records of your earlier posts, I suspect that my earlier complaint was because you were responding to Rob Bosman who also posted a multipart message (text and HTML), and Yahoo must have decided that it had to use quoted-printable when responding to that e-mail. -- Adam From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue May 5 23:10:25 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 16:10:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <895973.52510.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> <49FF22D9.20904@ripe.net> <000301c9cdbd$2bd06340$837129c0$@no> <728169.23111.qm@web53310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <000a01c9cdc2$d8e3ff60$8aabfe20$@no> <895973.52510.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0905051410m66a7b32mc506f1d0c8c075e9@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Ted Ying wrote: > Unfortunately, the public mail utilities, such as Yahoo! do not give the option of plain text. Ted, may I suggest gmail? It is fantastic, and it does almost everything I want. Better than Outlook in almost every way. You can post in plain text if you like. Jerry Fusselman From tedying at yahoo.com Tue May 5 23:14:37 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0905051410m66a7b32mc506f1d0c8c075e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> <49FF22D9.20904@ripe.net> <000301c9cdbd$2bd06340$837129c0$@no> <728169.23111.qm@web53310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <000a01c9cdc2$d8e3ff60$8aabfe20$@no> <895973.52510.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2b1e598b0905051410m66a7b32mc506f1d0c8c075e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <292191.71363.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> If there are sufficient complaints, I can switch to reading BLML from my gmail account (which I don't use a lot). After 7 years of using the Yahoo account, it is by far, more practical for me to use the Yahoo account for various reasons. However, as I said, if there continue to be problems from this account, I will use the gmail account, but as I recall, it uses very similar type recognition and is likely to have the same issues. There is no choice of format and both the gmail outbound mail server and the Yahoo outbound mail server will set type based on what it detects in the message and anything that it decides is Mime or metatext should have the same result. -Ted. ________________________________ From: Jerry Fusselman To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 5:10:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Ted Ying wrote: > Unfortunately, the public mail utilities, such as Yahoo! do not give the option of plain text. Ted, may I suggest gmail? It is fantastic, and it does almost everything I want. Better than Outlook in almost every way. You can post in plain text if you like. 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/20090505/7cc9c363/attachment.html From tedying at yahoo.com Tue May 5 23:35:25 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Plain text option in Yahoo! mail Message-ID: <615955.87493.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Okay, obviously, I just haven't been paying attention all these years, but there is an option in Yahoo! mail (a link at the far right end of the Subject Line) that gives the option to switch to plain text. Now that I'm looking for it, I found it. Sorry about the hassles to the list. -Ted. (Hopefully this will come out in plain text only) From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed May 6 00:03:22 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 23:03:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <200905052022.AA19031@geller204.nifty.com> References: <002701c9cda4$5d6c9ea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905052022.AA19031@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4A00B7AA.8060709@talktalk.net> [Robert Geller] As the rules now stand the director has to ask the player whether it was a slip of the hand or mind. The player invariably answers that it was the former. If the director doesn't accept this it's tantamount to saying "I don't believe you" or maybe even "you're lying." So the director almost invariably rules "slip of the hand." These are our rules until 2018 but maybe a rethink is needed. [Nigel] I agree with Bob that a rethink is needed. IMO the law should not allow a player to take back a call or play. An opponent of a handicapped player could ask the director not to enforce the law. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed May 6 00:07:15 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 23:07:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Plain text option in Yahoo! mail In-Reply-To: <615955.87493.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <615955.87493.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A00B893.4020608@talktalk.net> [Ted Ying] Okay, obviously, I just haven't been paying attention all these years, but there is an option in Yahoo! mail (a link at the far right end of the Subject Line) that gives the option to switch to plain text. Now that I'm looking for it, I found it. Sorry about the hassles to the list. [Nigel] Thanks Ted. Well done From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 6 01:22:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 09:22:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A00316D.10700@t-online.de> Message-ID: >What kind of trick question is this? > >Best regards >Matthias My kind of trick question. If the auction was perceived by West to be: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- Pass 1H Pass 2H 3D 4H X then West's double, according to the East-West system, was a responsive double, showing both black suits. If the auction was perceived by West to be: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- Pass 1H Pass 2H 5D 4H (1) X (2) (1) West notices that South has made an insufficient bid (2) West intentionally accepts South's insufficient bid and West intentionally doubles then West's double, according to the ABF option under Law 40B3, was a penalty double, showing five hearts. * * * >>Question 1: Is the negative fact that pard did not summon the >>Director authorised information for you? Juuso Lapinjatka: >Yes, it may be so, but only if pard has drawn attention to an >irregularity and then doubles. >"The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn >to an irregularity" or if pard's double was very fast. >Otherwise, of course not. Perhaps my question about the negative fact was overly concise. I should have asked: Question 1: Is the negative fact that pard did not draw attention to the insufficient bid before doubling (Law 9A1 contains the word "may", so according to the Introduction pard's negative action "is not wrong"), so therefore the Director was not summoned by pard, authorised information for you? My personal answer would be that it was LHO's irregularity followed by pard's "not wrong" action, so everything so far is AI to East under the Law 16A1(c) clause "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws" * * * Robert Frick: >Backatcha: Are the opponents entitled to know whether or not your >partner usually calls the director before accepting an insufficient >bid? If one always intends to accept RHO's insufficient bid pursuant to Law 27A it is entirely optional and entirely Lawful to either draw attention to the irregularity or decline to do so. My personal Law 27A preference is to save the time of the Director and everyone else by immediately calling over the insufficient bid whenever I judge that Law 27A is the most advantageous option for my side. Of course, because of my personal Law 27A preference, the infracting opponents never know whether I have intentionally or unintentionally accepted the insufficient bid. Nor does pard know. C'est la vie. * * * Nigel Guthrie: >IMO ... >- After South's insufficient bid, somebody should call the director. Yes, the initial problem I presented was a hypothetical variant on the actual ridiculous events. At the table, as East, I immediately summoned the Director after South's insufficient bid as a "safety play" against my partner choosing an _unintentional_ acceptance of South's insufficient bid. This led to an off-topic defensive problem: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- Pass(1) 1H Pass 2H 5D 4H (2) X (3) Pass Pass Pass (1) Only 11 hcp (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken for a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South (3) You summoned the Director immediately yourself before pard could take any inadvertent action. When the Director explained the Law 27 options to pard, he intentionally accepted the insufficient bid, then deliberately doubled for penalties. Pard's opening lead was the four of diamonds. Dummy J932 J92 8 QJ972 You K65 --- AKJT97653 T You played the king of diamonds and declarer followed with the deuce. Plan your deuced defence. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 6 02:08:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 10:08:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004701c9cd64$5dfaa1e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ David Burn or John Probst would probably know, but I think there is past experience of this kind of thing in England. ................................................................. For comparison: Extracts from the WBF General Conditions of Contest (2009) :- "A call is considered to have been made when the bidding card(s) is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but Law 25 may apply and if a player's mind was elsewhere as he makes an unintended call the 'pause for thought' should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error)." "If screens are in use the foregoing is modified - see section 3" "With screens in use a call is considered 'made' when placed on the tray and released." ................................................................. In WBF Championships screens are in general mandatory. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ October 2008 revision of the WBF Code of Practice, page 6: Law 25 Using bidding boxes a call is made when a bidding card is placed on the tray and released. When screens are in use Law 25 applies as written. A purposeful correction is not allowed. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 6 02:38:42 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 20:38:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 05 May 2009 19:22:06 -0400, wrote: > > * * * > > Robert Frick: > >> Backatcha: Are the opponents entitled to know whether or not your >> partner usually calls the director before accepting an insufficient >> bid? > > If one always intends to accept RHO's insufficient bid pursuant to > Law 27A it is entirely optional and entirely Lawful to either draw > attention to the irregularity or decline to do so. My personal Law > 27A preference is to save the time of the Director and everyone else > by immediately calling over the insufficient bid whenever I judge > that Law 27A is the most advantageous option for my side. > > Of course, because of my personal Law 27A preference, the infracting > opponents never know whether I have intentionally or unintentionally > accepted the insufficient bid. Nor does pard know. C'est la vie. Right. But for calculating the probability that you noticed the unintentional bid (and hence the likely meaning of your bid), your partner has an advantage over the opponents. Once for me 4th seat opened with a stop card and then realized her mistake. The stop card was of course UI to her partner and AI to the opponents. I wondered what I would rule if an opponent had inquired if this lady uses the stop card to open 2NT. (Some people here do and some do not.) But at least in my situation, the partner's knowledge was UI; here, partner's knowledge of your predilictions is AI and would seem to be an unfair (but legal?) advantage. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 6 06:16:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 14:16:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >Right. But for calculating the probability that you noticed >..... >your partner has an advantage over the opponents. Richard Hills: Your partner is carefully counting each and every card due to defending against a contract of 7NT. When dummy leads a heart winner at trick four, both declarer and you discard. Your partner now realises that either you or declarer has committed a not yet established revoke. Catch-22 If your partner asks a Law 61A3 question, "Heartless, pard?", then this may prompt declarer to correct her unestablished heart revoke and thus make the 7NT contract which would otherwise have failed. If your partner does not ask a Law 61A3 question and your heart revoke becomes established, then this may permit declarer to thus make the 7NT contract which would otherwise have failed. Obviously it would be to your partner's advantage to know whether the 7NT declarer is Timothy the Toucan (who will frequently revoke), or is the Hideous Hog (who will never _unintentionally_ revoke). Perhaps the Regulating Authority of the Unicorn Club should mandate a Pre-Alert of each player's revoke frequency. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 6 07:06:38 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:06:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c9cd85$6eed9c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>It was difficult for me to find a case where everybody would agree >>that 'no result at all can be obtained'. But this surely is a good >>example. I might even mention it to some junior TDs who wonder >>what this might be. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Ah, I see. You are linking 12C1 to 12C2(a). Sometimes exposure >of information or other circumstances may stymie "normal play of >the board". [Law 12A2]. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Some years ago two Little Old Lady teams committed the classic error of having one team sit North-South at both tables and the other team sit East-West at both tables. (1) Was "normal play of the boards" stymied? (2) Was their match scored as a double forfeit because "no result at all can be obtained"? Not as such. When a Director asks "What's the problem?", that Director should not be rigidly narrow in defining the parameters of the problem. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), on the problem with cucumbers: "A cucumber should be well-sliced, dressed with pepper and vinegar, and then thrown out." Because it was the first round of a Swiss Teams, the ingenious Director suggested to the two Little Old Lady teams that they interchange team-mates to achieve a valid result, then continue to play the remaining rounds of the event in their new formations. This suggestion was willingly adopted and a good time was then had by all. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 6 07:46:03 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 01:46:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 06 May 2009 00:16:08 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> Right. But for calculating the probability that you noticed >> ..... >> your partner has an advantage over the opponents. > > Richard Hills: > > Your partner is carefully counting each and every card due to > defending against a contract of 7NT. When dummy leads a heart > winner at trick four, both declarer and you discard. Your partner > now realises that either you or declarer has committed a not yet > established revoke. > > Catch-22 > > If your partner asks a Law 61A3 question, "Heartless, pard?", then > this may prompt declarer to correct her unestablished heart revoke > and thus make the 7NT contract which would otherwise have failed. > > If your partner does not ask a Law 61A3 question and your heart > revoke becomes established, then this may permit declarer to thus > make the 7NT contract which would otherwise have failed. > > Obviously it would be to your partner's advantage to know whether > the 7NT declarer is Timothy the Toucan (who will frequently > revoke), or is the Hideous Hog (who will never _unintentionally_ > revoke). > > Perhaps the Regulating Authority of the Unicorn Club should > mandate a Pre-Alert of each player's revoke frequency. I think you are making a good point -- players are not entitled to know everything about the opponents. More than once I have wanted to ask unfamiliar opponents how many masterpoints they had. But there is something especially irritating when you can know what your partner's bid means better than you have to tell the opponents. Suppose you open 1S, LHO bids 1D, and your partner bids 2C. You presumably have partnership agreements about what the 2C bid means if there is no intervening 1D bid (as if partner did not see it). The opps can get that from your card, but presumably you don't have to answer questions about it, as it is an auction which could not occur. Now, you might know for sure that your partner did not see the 1D bid, because your partner never accepts an insufficient bid without first calling the director. So you know exactly what partner meant. The opps don't know that, and you presumably don't have to answer questions about that. So they have to deal with multiple possible meanings of your partner's bid. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 6 07:52:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:52:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200905052022.AA19031@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott noted: >>+=+ In a game that is all about judgement Directors are >>appointed to exercise judgement when the laws require it. >>Experience, their own and that handed on from their elders in >>the business, equips them remarkably well to make these >>judgements. I have but little sympathy for players who behave >>habitually in a way to call into question the basis of their >>mannerisms. Minds can be read with greater ease than you allow. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Bob Geller asserted: >As the rules now stand the director has to ask the player >whether it was a slip of the hand or mind. The player >invariably answers that it was the former. If the director >doesn't accept this it's tantamount to saying "I don't believe >you" or maybe even "you're lying." So the director almost >invariably rules "slip of the hand." > >These are our rules until 2018 but maybe a rethink is needed. Richard Hills quibbles: Are these our rules? Shall we Read The Fabulous Law Book? Law 85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: A. Director's Assessment 1. 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. 2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84. B. Facts Not Determined If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue. Richard Hills quibbles: If the Director already knows that a particular player will invariably assert "slip of the hand" in response to a question, then that answer has zero evidential weight. So a canny Director will not bother to ask the corresponding question to such a habitual undeviant in the first place. Rather, the canny Director will weigh the copious clues that hand records and the other three players provide. (On a lucky day the canny Director might be able to use Law 76C1 to gain clues from an interested but disinterested kibitzer.) Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed May 6 08:05:50 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 16:05:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <200905052022.AA19031@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <200905060605.n4665oU8020684@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 03:52 PM 6/05/2009, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott noted: > > >>+=+ In a game that is all about judgement Directors are > >>appointed to exercise judgement when the laws require it. > >>Experience, their own and that handed on from their elders in > >>the business, equips them remarkably well to make these > >>judgements. I have but little sympathy for players who behave > >>habitually in a way to call into question the basis of their > >>mannerisms. Minds can be read with greater ease than you allow. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Bob Geller asserted: > > >As the rules now stand the director has to ask the player > >whether it was a slip of the hand or mind. The player > >invariably answers that it was the former. If the director > >doesn't accept this it's tantamount to saying "I don't believe > >you" or maybe even "you're lying." So the director almost > >invariably rules "slip of the hand." > > > >These are our rules until 2018 but maybe a rethink is needed. > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Are these our rules? Shall we Read The Fabulous Law Book? > >Law 85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts > >When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or >regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as >follows: > >A. Director's Assessment > >1. 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. > >2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the >facts, he rules as in Law 84. > >B. Facts Not Determined > >If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his >satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to >continue. > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >If the Director already knows that a particular player will >invariably assert "slip of the hand" in response to a question, >then that answer has zero evidential weight. So a canny Director >will not bother to ask the corresponding question to such a >habitual undeviant in the first place. > >Rather, the canny Director will weigh the copious clues that hand >records and the other three players provide. (On a lucky day the >canny Director might be able to use Law 76C1 to gain clues from >an interested but disinterested kibitzer.) Fortunately, I only direct players for whom I can confidently declare "in your case I think there is no doubt you had a brain seizure so we will allow the change this time. Please pay me $10 after the game" Cheers Tony (Sydney) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 6 09:11:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 08:11:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200905052022.AA19031@geller204.nifty.com> <200905060605.n4665oU8020684@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <003001c9ce19$de6ab850$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> > > Fortunately, I only direct players for whom I can confidently > declare "in your case I think there is no doubt you had a brain > seizure so we will allow the change this time. Please pay me > $10 after the game" > +=+ At current rates of exchange that is very cheap indeed. +=+ From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed May 6 10:15:31 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 18:15:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003001c9ce19$de6ab850$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <200905052022.AA19031@geller204.nifty.com> <200905060605.n4665oU8020684@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> <003001c9ce19$de6ab850$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <200905060815.n468FVVT001967@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:11 PM 6/05/2009, you wrote: >Grattan Endicottalso ********************************** >"When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> > > > Fortunately, I only direct players for whom I can confidently > > declare "in your case I think there is no doubt you had a brain > > seizure so we will allow the change this time. Please pay me > > $10 after the game" > > >+=+ At current rates of exchange that is very cheap indeed. +=+ I will revise my list of charges. At present it is only $20 if they want to win Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 6 11:00:51 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:00:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A0151C3.9060006@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I think you are making a good point -- players are not entitled to know > everything about the opponents. More than once I have wanted to ask > unfamiliar opponents how many masterpoints they had. > > But there is something especially irritating when you can know what your > partner's bid means better than you have to tell the opponents. Suppose > you open 1S, LHO bids 1D, and your partner bids 2C. > > You presumably have partnership agreements about what the 2C bid means if > there is no intervening 1D bid (as if partner did not see it). The opps > can get that from your card, but presumably you don't have to answer > questions about it, as it is an auction which could not occur. > > Now, you might know for sure that your partner did not see the 1D bid, > because your partner never accepts an insufficient bid without first > calling the director. So you know exactly what partner meant. The opps > don't know that, and you presumably don't have to answer questions about > that. So they have to deal with multiple possible meanings of your > partner's bid. > You're right. However, IMOBO, there is no problem. Opponents' infraction has put them in a very uncommon situation, where it could cost them more than what the law says and nobody can do anything about it. Not every such situation can be foreseen. Too bad. They'll be more careful next time. Best regards Alain From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Wed May 6 11:14:10 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 12:14:10 +0300 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <4A005E2D.2080702@aol.com> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <097B9F36-6399-4EF9-AA8E-6CE08EACE70C@starpower.net> <4A003EC2.4070008@jldata.fi> <4A005E2D.2080702@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A0154E2.3000809@jldata.fi> Jeff Easterson wrote: > What in the world is "East German...ULB"? What does this mean? I have > lived in Berlin since 1961. In "East Germany" (the DDR, in English > "GDR") bridge was not encouraged. (That is an immense understatement.) > Just in case that is of any relevance. JE > > PS: I can't find ULB on the list of blml abbreviations. > > In East-Germany, old time, the shortes time unit was ULB. When citizen of DDR (GDR)heard from radio, that now speaks Ulbricht, they turned radio off immediately after ULB, no need to hear more. Juuso From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 6 12:11:27 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 12:11:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <4A0154E2.3000809@jldata.fi> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <097B9F36-6399-4EF9-AA8E-6CE08EACE70C@starpower.net> <4A003EC2.4070008@jldata.fi> <4A005E2D.2080702@aol.com> <4A0154E2.3000809@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <4A01624F.3080908@ulb.ac.be> Lapinjatka a ?crit : > Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> What in the world is "East German...ULB"? What does this mean? I have >> lived in Berlin since 1961. In "East Germany" (the DDR, in English >> "GDR") bridge was not encouraged. (That is an immense understatement.) >> Just in case that is of any relevance. JE >> >> PS: I can't find ULB on the list of blml abbreviations. >> >> >> > In East-Germany, old time, the shortes time unit was ULB. > When citizen of DDR (GDR)heard from radio, that now speaks Ulbricht, > they turned radio off immediately after ULB, no need to hear more. > This will make an excellent story to tell my colleagues Alain, presently working at the Universit? Libre de Bruxelles From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed May 6 13:41:37 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 13:41:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A017771.30705@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: >> What kind of trick question is this? >> >> Best regards >> Matthias > > My kind of trick question. > > If the auction was perceived by West to be: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- Pass > 1H Pass 2H 3D > 4H X > > then West's double, according to the East-West system, was a > responsive double, showing both black suits. I am sorry, Richard, but ths is too mind-boggling to contemplate. East initially passed, West could not act over 1H, and now a double of 4H is _responsive_, telling the world about an enormous misfit and asking to be either redoubled or be doubled somewhere for about 1400?? Maybe we could discuss this without East being a passed hand, but even then it is absolutely insane to announce a misfit at the 4-level. In fact I can`t think of any hand unable to act over 1H that could now offer a "cards" or "responsive" double. big snip > > This led to an off-topic defensive problem: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- Pass(1) > 1H Pass 2H 5D > 4H (2) X (3) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Only 11 hcp > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken > for a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South > (3) You summoned the Director immediately yourself before pard could > take any inadvertent action. When the Director explained the Law > 27 options to pard, he intentionally accepted the insufficient > bid, then deliberately doubled for penalties. > > Pard's opening lead was the four of diamonds. > > Dummy > J932 > J92 > 8 > QJ972 You > K65 > --- > AKJT97653 > T > > You played the king of diamonds and declarer followed with the deuce. > > Plan your deuced defence. > Since I can stand a S switch from pard I play a club. Playing a D clears up the situation in that suit, but may cost us the club trick (unlikely, though). Anyway, I want to cash all our fast tricks early and wait for the trump winners. Best regards Matthias From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 6 15:23:43 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 09:23:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <8730FF1E-B8D9-40D2-B34B-0F5A1FF4134B@starpower.net> On May 5, 2009, at 8:26 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard.hills] > +=+ So each tournament requires a supply of flamingos and > hedgehogs. +=+ > > In the notorious film "Pink Flamingos" the character Babs Johnson > said: > "I haven't fallen in love for three whole days!" > Imps Dlr: East Vul: Both You, East, hold: K65 -- AKJT97653 T > The bidding has gone: > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- Pass(1) > 1H Pass 2H 5D > 4H (2) X (3) Pass ? > (1) Only 11 hcp > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken > for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South > (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken > for > a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic West > Question 1: Is the negative fact that pard did not summon the Director > authorised information for you? > Question 2: If indeed pard's negative action is UI to you, which of > your > logical alternatives remain Lawful logical alternatives? > > [Nigel] > IMO ... > - After South's insufficient bid, somebody should call the director. > - Here there is no UI from West's failure to call the director, > because, accepting and doubling the insufficient bid are among > West's legal options. > - The only question is whether you are allowed to vary your system > depending on the option that you choose over an infraction. > - According to the new laws, this is legal unless locally banned. > - Assuming no local restriction on such variations, for > partnerships who seriously consider this issue, double is clearly > *penalty* -- even if double of a sufficient bid would have been > *cards*. For an individual player who seriously considers this issue -- even on the spot, encountering it at the table for the very first time -- double is clearly penalty, even if a double of a sufficient bid would have been "cards". It is not an agreement -- it is an "inference[] drawn from [] knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] -- and thus not subject to "local restriction". > - Obviously, law makers shouldn't provide such options for players > over infractions. > Admittedly, they are a boon to secretary birds and an intriguing > challenge for directors but they are a nightmare for ordinary players. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Wed May 6 15:49:16 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 16:49:16 +0300 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A017771.30705@t-online.de> References: <4A017771.30705@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4A01955C.90008@jldata.fi> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > >>> What kind of trick question is this? >>> >>> Best regards >>> Matthias >>> >> My kind of trick question. >> >> If the auction was perceived by West to be: >> >> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> --- --- --- Pass >> 1H Pass 2H 3D >> 4H X >> >> then West's double, according to the East-West system, was a >> responsive double, showing both black suits. >> > > I am sorry, Richard, but ths is too mind-boggling to contemplate. East > initially passed, West could not act over 1H, and now a double of 4H is > _responsive_, telling the world about an enormous misfit and asking to > be either redoubled or be doubled somewhere for about 1400?? > Maybe we could discuss this without East being a passed hand, but even > then it is absolutely insane to announce a misfit at the 4-level. In > fact I can`t think of any hand unable to act over 1H that could now > offer a "cards" or "responsive" double. > > big snip > > >> This led to an off-topic defensive problem: >> >> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> --- --- --- Pass(1) >> 1H Pass 2H 5D >> 4H (2) X (3) Pass Pass >> Pass >> >> (1) Only 11 hcp >> (2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken >> for a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South >> (3) You summoned the Director immediately yourself before pard could >> take any inadvertent action. When the Director explained the Law >> 27 options to pard, he intentionally accepted the insufficient >> bid, then deliberately doubled for penalties. >> >> Pard's opening lead was the four of diamonds. >> >> Dummy >> J932 >> J92 >> 8 >> QJ972 You >> K65 >> --- >> AKJT97653 >> T >> >> You played the king of diamonds and declarer followed with the deuce. >> >> Plan your deuced defence. >> >> > > Since I can stand a S switch from pard I play a club. Playing a D clears > up the situation in that suit, but may cost us the club trick (unlikely, > though). Anyway, I want to cash all our fast tricks early and wait for > the trump winners. > > I think only we need to protect is pard's tricks in hearts, say KQ10x, AQ10x I return dia ace. Juuso > Best regards > Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 6 15:56:04 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 09:56:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <4A008641.50809@talktalk.net> References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> <000801c9cd85$6f438450$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A008641.50809@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <47987E51-A4B1-4D64-8CE6-E227F5AFC9C8@starpower.net> On May 5, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Grattan Endicott] > > +=+ The word 'obviously' and what goes with it attribute a > situation to the law makers that was not of their making. The > law at this point encountered a developing practice in the more > expert bridge community. The law makers provided authority > for control of such practices according to the environment in > which they occur and the wishes of the Regulating Authority. > It seems reasonable to me that the environment of a > world championship might be suitable for more liberal > treatment than is the case in the Bayanbaraat Bridge Club. > There was discussion whether the RA's option should be to > allow such methods or to disallow them. The coin fell as it > did and I accept that Nigel might well have preferred the > other side of the coin. > > [Nigel] > Grattan is right as far as he goes. IMO, he doesn't go far enough. > > Bridge law does allow local jurisdictions to restrict the meanings > of actions that depend on the legal option that a player chooses > after an infraction *but* > :) Not all jurisdictions impose restrictions. > :) If a jurisdiction does restrict agreements that depend on the > option chosen, then it is hard to detect and penalise a transgression. > :) Some *but not all* directors seem to believe that, in *any* > jurisdiction, it is OK to vary the meaning, depending on the option > that you choose, provided that the variant would be obvious even > without explicit agreement If the meaning of an action is "obvious even without explicit agreement", then it must be OK to assume that meaning. Indeed, since it would take some kind of agreement for the action to mean anything other than the obvious, a regulation prohibiting partnership agreement regarding it would *require* players to assume the "obvious" meaning. Local jurisdictions cannot demand that a call have no intended meaning whatsoever *absent agreement*, and even if that did make logical sense (which it really doesn't, if you think about it), "it means nothing at all" is as much an agreement, if not more so, than "it means the obvious". Local jurisdictions cannot alter the rules of logic, nor can they so restrict an otherwise legal call so that making it becomes an unavoidable infraction. > (For example, whatever your normal agreement, the double of an > accepted insufficient bid is *logically* penalty). > > IMO, it would be simpler if Bridge rules included *no such options* > for players. > > Instead, for example, an insufficient bid would be UI to partner > and the offender would have to substitute a pass. > > Removal of options would also mitigate problems with calls out of > turn and illegal calls :) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 6 16:10:36 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 10:10:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] slip of the mind or hand? In-Reply-To: <000301c9cdbd$2bd06340$837129c0$@no> References: <000e01c9cb81$eaea4090$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905041211.AA19019@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c9ccc9$b0dd0f60$12972e20$@no> <49FF0819.3090004@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c9ccd1$349a5310$9dcef930$@no> <49FF22D9.20904@ripe.net> <000301c9cdbd$2bd06340$837129c0$@no> Message-ID: On May 5, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ............ >> Where I direct, it is routine for floor directors to carry copies of >> the hand records, and, when called to a table, to locate and peruse >> the hand record for the board in question before beginning the >> process of ascertaining the facts. That leaves them free to take the >> player's hand into account, or not, without letting the table know >> whether they have done so. > > And then the players KNOW that your ruling is most likely biased > according > to the actual cards held by the player. Which has the salubrious effect of reassuring that table that the inadvertent call is truly meaningless and can be ignored, in particular, that it conveys no extraneous information to the partner of the inadvertent bidder. After all, if the player's hand does suggest that the call was unlikely to have been genuinely inadvertent, the director may steadfastly refuse to take any notice of the fact, but the other players won't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 6 16:45:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 10:45:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15308820-83D3-4160-A2D7-34A5645B7819@starpower.net> On May 5, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 05 May 2009 19:22:06 -0400, wrote: > >> Robert Frick: >> >>> Backatcha: Are the opponents entitled to know whether or not your >>> partner usually calls the director before accepting an insufficient >>> bid? >> >> If one always intends to accept RHO's insufficient bid pursuant to >> Law 27A it is entirely optional and entirely Lawful to either draw >> attention to the irregularity or decline to do so. My personal Law >> 27A preference is to save the time of the Director and everyone else >> by immediately calling over the insufficient bid whenever I judge >> that Law 27A is the most advantageous option for my side. >> >> Of course, because of my personal Law 27A preference, the infracting >> opponents never know whether I have intentionally or unintentionally >> accepted the insufficient bid. Nor does pard know. C'est la vie. > > Right. But for calculating the probability that you noticed the > unintentional bid (and hence the likely meaning of your bid), your > partner > has an advantage over the opponents. While the law itself does not seem to preclude Richard's practice, Bob raises the question of whether it may be ethically questionable. If Richard's partner is alive to the likelihood that Richard may be intentionally accepting an insufficient bid, while Richard's overt actions suggest to the opponents that he did so unintentionally, that would certainly at least carry the odor of deliberate deception. Perhaps to be strictly ethical, one should always call the TD in this situation, to insure that one's intention to accept the IB (or lack thereof) is equally known to (or assumed by) all. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed May 6 16:53:19 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 15:53:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <8730FF1E-B8D9-40D2-B34B-0F5A1FF4134B@starpower.net> References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> <8730FF1E-B8D9-40D2-B34B-0F5A1FF4134B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A01A45F.2070504@talktalk.net> [Eric Landau] For an individual player who seriously considers this issue -- even on the spot, encountering it at the table for the very first time -- double is clearly penalty, even if a double of a sufficient bid would have been "cards". It is not an agreement -- it is an "inference[] drawn from [] knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] -- and thus not subject to "local restriction". [Nigel] Clear to Eric. Clear to many. But dissenting views were expressed, when this topic was discussed previously on BLML. Here, Eric is talking about jurisdictions that forbid you to vary agreements, depending on the option chosen. In such a context, I disagree with Eric that his interpretation is obviously correct. I agree with the minority that the law is unclear as to whether you are allowed different meanings, depending on the option that you choose. Problems like this are endemic to laws that allow players to choose among options over an infraction. A simple solution is to remove such player options. BTW, in less "obvious" cases, the law is even more confusing, because some BLMLers like Grattan Endicott seem to define "general knowledge" to be a synonym for "common local practice". I think that interpretation is pernicious. IMO, "General knowledge" is a phrase that should be removed from the law-book. A background of basic common knowledge is implicit in most legal documents. By unnecessarily making this assumption explicit, bridge law-makers have encouraged prevarication by players about local idiosyncrasies, enthusiastically condoned by some directors, proud of their local knowledge. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 6 17:20:28 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:20:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <4A01A45F.2070504@talktalk.net> References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> <8730FF1E-B8D9-40D2-B34B-0F5A1FF4134B@starpower.net> <4A01A45F.2070504@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <21FBB595-0CA9-4D9F-A4FA-D129FA540798@starpower.net> On May 6, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] > > For an individual player who seriously considers this issue -- even > on the spot, encountering it at the table for the very first time -- > double is clearly penalty, even if a double of a sufficient bid would > have been "cards". It is not an agreement -- it is an "inference[] > drawn from [] knowledge and experience of matters generally known to > bridge players" [L40B6(a)] -- and thus not subject to "local > restriction". > > [Nigel] > Clear to Eric. Clear to many. But dissenting views were expressed, > when this topic was discussed previously on BLML. > > Here, Eric is talking about jurisdictions that forbid you to vary > agreements, depending on the option chosen. In such a context, I > disagree with Eric that his interpretation is obviously correct. I > agree with the minority that the law is unclear as to whether you > are allowed different meanings, depending on the option that you > choose. > > Problems like this are endemic to laws that allow players to choose > among options over an infraction. A simple solution is to remove > such player options. > > BTW, in less "obvious" cases, the law is even more confusing, > because some BLMLers like Grattan Endicott seem to define "general > knowledge" to be a synonym for "common local practice". I think > that interpretation is pernicious. > > IMO, "General knowledge" is a phrase that should be removed from > the law-book. A background of basic common knowledge is implicit in > most legal documents. By unnecessarily making this assumption > explicit, bridge law-makers have encouraged prevarication by > players about local idiosyncrasies, enthusiastically condoned by > some directors, proud of their local knowledge. Nigel misses the point. If I believe that my "interpretation is obviously correct", it doesn't matter whether or not I am right. It simply means that I will believe that the interpretation which I believe to be obvious correct is in fact correct, because to believe anything other than what I believe to be obvious in any kind of partnership context -- even to "believe", meaninglessly, that the bid was totally meaningless -- would require an agreement to that effect. If we were to take "general knowledge" out of the lawbook, then prohibiting an agreement as to the meaning of a particular call in a particular set of circumstances would be the same as prohibiting the call itself, which is insupportable. If we take Nigel's logic to its conclusion, it would be illegal perforce to accept an IB, since doing so would require taking an action whose interpretation was universally accepted as "obviously correct", and there ain't no such thing. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 6 17:51:34 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 17:51:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <4A01A45F.2070504@talktalk.net> References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> <8730FF1E-B8D9-40D2-B34B-0F5A1FF4134B@starpower.net> <4A01A45F.2070504@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <4A01B206.5060400@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Eric Landau] > > For an individual player who seriously considers this issue -- even > on the spot, encountering it at the table for the very first time -- > double is clearly penalty, even if a double of a sufficient bid would > have been "cards". It is not an agreement -- it is an "inference[] > drawn from [] knowledge and experience of matters generally known to > bridge players" [L40B6(a)] -- and thus not subject to "local > restriction". > > [Nigel] > Clear to Eric. Clear to many. But dissenting views were expressed, when this topic was discussed previously on BLML. > > Here, Eric is talking about jurisdictions that forbid you to vary agreements, depending on the option chosen. In such a context, I disagree with Eric that his interpretation is obviously correct. I agree with the minority that the law is unclear as to whether you are allowed different meanings, depending on the option that you choose. > AG : Unless you postulate that knowing the meaning of a bid is always the consequence of an agreement, which is untenable, the answer is obvious. (why untenable ? Because it has been shown, in every occasion that two absolute strangers sit facing eachother, that they understand at least some of eachother's bids) > Problems like this are endemic to laws that allow players to choose among options over an infraction. A simple solution is to remove such player options. > AG : and that would seriously increase the number of deliberate infractions. For example, if you had no choice but reject the suit of a LOOT, leading the suit you don't want partner to lead would become routine. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed May 6 23:53:31 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 23:53:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please Message-ID: <4A0206DB.50101@aol.com> Playing a "normal" system (similar to BW system), white against red, you hold following hand: Q2 AQ63 A108762 3 You open 1 diam. LHO doubles and partner redoubles, RHO passes. Question 1: what do you now call? At the table the player bid 2 diam. and partner bid 2 hearts. (Opponents passed for the rest of the auction.) Question 2: what do you now call? The player bid 3 hearts and partner bid 3NT. Question 3: what do you now call? The player in question passed. In asking other players for their opinions I found an interesting variety of responses. Strong players mostly passed the redouble. Some bid 2 diam. Weaker players all bid 2 diam. To question 2: strong players bid 4 clubs (splinter) unanimously. Weaker players bid 3 hearts. To question 3: stronger players said, unanimously, the auction stinks! But if in the situation they would bid 4 hearts. Weaker players were divided, some bid 4 hearts, some passed. Naturally partner had psyched the 2 heart bid, he had: A743 84 K54 QJ104 (Apparently the redouble showed 10+ points with any distribution.) Your opinions please? JE From Arbhuston at aol.com Thu May 7 01:01:54 2009 From: Arbhuston at aol.com (Arbhuston at aol.com) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 19:01:54 EDT Subject: [BLML] your opinions please Message-ID: There are some unanswered questions here. If RHO passed intending it to be a penalty pass (some still play it that way), or if his partner thinks that's what he did, I think I should find out. Then, there is the question of the meaning of the bid that I might take. Some still play that one bids only if one has a singleton on the side or a rebid of his suit (with a minimum hand, good suit, and little side defense). This is an entirely playable method. If that is the case, then a bid of 1H would be called for (suggesting a five-card or longer D suit). If one is playing in a partnership without these or other specific understandings, then a bid of 2D is certainly understandable. If 2D, and pard bids 2H, then I think 4C is pretty clear. (But not so clear as to make it clear that he was fielding a psych). With regard to question 3, pulling to 4H, in my opinion, almost has no logical alternatives. This, in an experienced partnership, would be evidence of prior understandings being developed by a history of psyching, and should be reported to a recorder (at least). However, if the pair does play that the rdbl shows 10+ with any distribution, then it may be able to get off light on the basis of a low skill quotient. Michael Huston In a message dated 5/6/2009 4:54:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time, JffEstrsn at aol.com writes: Playing a "normal" system (similar to BW system), white against red, you hold following hand: Q2 AQ63 A108762 3 You open 1 diam. LHO doubles and partner redoubles, RHO passes. Question 1: what do you now call? At the table the player bid 2 diam. and partner bid 2 hearts. (Opponents passed for the rest of the auction.) Question 2: what do you now call? The player bid 3 hearts and partner bid 3NT. Question 3: what do you now call? The player in question passed. In asking other players for their opinions I found an interesting variety of responses. Strong players mostly passed the redouble. Some bid 2 diam. Weaker players all bid 2 diam. To question 2: strong players bid 4 clubs (splinter) unanimously. Weaker players bid 3 hearts. To question 3: stronger players said, unanimously, the auction stinks! But if in the situation they would bid 4 hearts. Weaker players were divided, some bid 4 hearts, some passed. Naturally partner had psyched the 2 heart bid, he had: A743 84 K54 QJ104 (Apparently the redouble showed 10+ points with any distribution.) Your opinions please? JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml **************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090506/0d277c05/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu May 7 01:02:31 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 01:02:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please In-Reply-To: <4A0206DB.50101@aol.com> References: <4A0206DB.50101@aol.com> Message-ID: <000701c9ce9e$bc9f2230$35dd6690$@no> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > Subject: [BLML] your opinions please > > Playing a "normal" system (similar to BW system), white against red, you > hold following hand: > > Q2 > AQ63 > A108762 > 3 > > You open 1 diam. LHO doubles and partner redoubles, RHO passes. > Question 1: what do you now call? PASS. (If I should bid anything it would have been 1H) > > At the table the player bid 2 diam. and partner bid 2 hearts. > (Opponents passed for the rest of the auction.) > Question 2: what do you now call? My first thought was 4H but on second thought yes: 4C > > The player bid 3 hearts and partner bid 3NT. > Question 3: what do you now call? > > The player in question passed. Shudder > > In asking other players for their opinions I found an interesting > variety of responses. > > Strong players mostly passed the redouble. Some bid 2 diam. Weaker > players all bid 2 diam. > > To question 2: strong players bid 4 clubs (splinter) unanimously. Weaker > players bid 3 hearts. > > To question 3: stronger players said, unanimously, the auction stinks! > But if in the situation they would bid 4 hearts. Weaker players were > divided, some bid 4 hearts, some passed. > > Naturally partner had psyched the 2 heart bid, he had: > > A743 > 84 > K54 > QJ104 > (Apparently the redouble showed 10+ points with any distribution.) > Your opinions please? JE Psyching a redouble in this position certainly creates a high score, and opponents receive the bonus. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu May 7 01:06:58 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 01:06:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please References: <4A0206DB.50101@aol.com> Message-ID: <000801c9ce9f$5b8c19c0$12a44d40$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran at online.no] > Sent: 7. mai 2009 01:03 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: RE: [BLML] your opinions please > > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > > Subject: [BLML] your opinions please > > > > Playing a "normal" system (similar to BW system), white against red, you > > hold following hand: > > > > Q2 > > AQ63 > > A108762 > > 3 > > > > You open 1 diam. LHO doubles and partner redoubles, RHO passes. > > Question 1: what do you now call? > > PASS. (If I should bid anything it would have been 1H) > > > > > At the table the player bid 2 diam. and partner bid 2 hearts. > > (Opponents passed for the rest of the auction.) > > Question 2: what do you now call? > > My first thought was 4H but on second thought yes: 4C > > > > > The player bid 3 hearts and partner bid 3NT. > > Question 3: what do you now call? > > > > The player in question passed. > > Shudder > > > > > In asking other players for their opinions I found an interesting > > variety of responses. > > > > Strong players mostly passed the redouble. Some bid 2 diam. Weaker > > players all bid 2 diam. > > > > To question 2: strong players bid 4 clubs (splinter) unanimously. Weaker > > players bid 3 hearts. > > > > To question 3: stronger players said, unanimously, the auction stinks! > > But if in the situation they would bid 4 hearts. Weaker players were > > divided, some bid 4 hearts, some passed. > > > > Naturally partner had psyched the 2 heart bid, he had: > > > > A743 > > 84 > > K54 > > QJ104 > > (Apparently the redouble showed 10+ points with any distribution.) > > Your opinions please? JE Sorry, I lost the word "after! - the following sentence should read: Psyching after redoubling in this position certainly creates a high score, and opponents receive the bonus. > > Regards Sven From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu May 7 02:39:32 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 01:39:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <21FBB595-0CA9-4D9F-A4FA-D129FA540798@starpower.net> References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> <8730FF1E-B8D9-40D2-B34B-0F5A1FF4134B@starpower.net> <4A01A45F.2070504@talktalk.net> <21FBB595-0CA9-4D9F-A4FA-D129FA540798@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A022DC4.1020308@talktalk.net> [Eric Landau] Nigel misses the point. If I believe that my "interpretation is obviously correct", it doesn't matter whether or not I am right. It simply means that I will believe that the interpretation which I believe to be obvious correct is in fact correct, because to believe anything other than what I believe to be obvious in any kind of partnership context -- even to "believe", meaninglessly, that the bid was totally meaningless -- would require an agreement to that effect. If we were to take "general knowledge" out of the lawbook, then prohibiting an agreement as to the meaning of a particular call in a particular set of circumstances would be the same as prohibiting the call itself, which is insupportable. If we take Nigel's logic to its conclusion, it would be illegal perforce to accept an IB, since doing so would require taking an action whose interpretation was universally accepted as "obviously correct", and there ain't no such thing. [Nigel] I don't think I've missed the point. I understand Eric's argument but am unconvinced by it. May we discuss an earlier simpler example. Suppose ... [A] We are in a jurisdiction that forbids us to vary our agreements depending on the option that we choose. [B] You deal and open 4S; LHO overcalls with an *insufficient* 4H; [C] Partner calls the director. Partner elects to accept the 4S bid and doubles; RHO passes. [D] Our systemic agreement is that partner's double of a *sufficient* heart bid would have been *take-out* or *cards*. [E] I agree with Eric that the double of an insufficient bid is *logically* *penalty*. [F] But IMO, the law defines this as an agreement, if this has previously occurred *or* we've discussed it. [G] Hence, is it isn't clear to me that it is legally OK to interpret partner's double in a different way. Does anybody agree that the law is unclear? Similar problems arise with player-options over calls out of turn. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu May 7 08:39:01 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 08:39:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please In-Reply-To: <4A0206DB.50101@aol.com> References: <4A0206DB.50101@aol.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/6 Jeff Easterson : > Playing a "normal" system (similar to BW system), white against red, you > hold following hand: > > Q2 > AQ63 > A108762 > 3 > > You open 1 diam. ?LHO doubles and partner redoubles, RHO passes. > Question 1: what do you now call? 1H, alternatively pass. > > At the table the player bid 2 diam. and partner bid 2 hearts. > (Opponents passed for the rest of the auction.) > Question 2: what do you now call? 4C, pretty obvious. > > The player bid 3 hearts and partner bid 3NT. > Question 3: what do you now call? 4H, of course. > > The player in question passed. Not an option. > > In asking other players for their opinions I found an interesting > variety of responses. > > Strong players mostly passed the redouble. ?Some bid 2 diam. ?Weaker > players all bid 2 diam. > > To question 2: strong players bid 4 clubs (splinter) unanimously. Weaker > players bid 3 hearts. > > To question 3: stronger players said, unanimously, ?the auction stinks! > But if in the situation they would bid 4 hearts. ?Weaker players were > divided, some bid 4 hearts, some passed. > > Naturally partner had psyched the 2 heart bid, he had: > > A743 > 84 > K54 > QJ104 > (Apparently the redouble showed 10+ points with any distribution.) > Your opinions please? ? JE > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu May 7 09:18:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 08:18:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please References: <4A0206DB.50101@aol.com> <000801c9ce9f$5b8c19c0$12a44d40$@no> Message-ID: <001201c9cee4$0511ae80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] your opinions please > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran at online.no] >> Sent: 7. mai 2009 01:03 >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: RE: [BLML] your opinions please >> >> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson >> > Subject: [BLML] your opinions please >> > >> > Playing a "normal" system (similar to BW system), white against red, >> > you >> > hold following hand: >> > >> > Q2 >> > AQ63 >> > A108762 >> > 3 >> > >> > You open 1 diam. LHO doubles and partner redoubles, RHO passes. >> > Question 1: what do you now call? >> >> PASS. (If I should bid anything it would have been 1H) >> >> > >> > At the table the player bid 2 diam. and partner bid 2 hearts. >> > (Opponents passed for the rest of the auction.) >> > Question 2: what do you now call? >> >> My first thought was 4H but on second thought yes: 4C >> >> > >> > The player bid 3 hearts and partner bid 3NT. >> > Question 3: what do you now call? >> > >> > The player in question passed. >> >> Shudder >> >> > >> > In asking other players for their opinions I found an interesting >> > variety of responses. >> > >> > Strong players mostly passed the redouble. Some bid 2 diam. Weaker >> > players all bid 2 diam. >> > >> > To question 2: strong players bid 4 clubs (splinter) unanimously. >> > Weaker >> > players bid 3 hearts. >> > >> > To question 3: stronger players said, unanimously, the auction stinks! >> > But if in the situation they would bid 4 hearts. Weaker players were >> > divided, some bid 4 hearts, some passed. >> > >> > Naturally partner had psyched the 2 heart bid, he had: >> > >> > A743 >> > 84 >> > K54 >> > QJ104 >> > (Apparently the redouble showed 10+ points with any distribution.) >> > Your opinions please? JE > > Sorry, I lost the word "after! - the following sentence should read: > > Psyching after redoubling in this position certainly creates a high score, > and opponents receive the bonus. > +=+ I pass the redouble. Psyching the Heart suit when we have the balance of strength - and favourable vulnerability - has the hallmarks of a losing policy. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 7 10:02:37 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 10:02:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please In-Reply-To: <4A0206DB.50101@aol.com> References: <4A0206DB.50101@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A02959D.3030604@ulb.ac.be> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > Playing a "normal" system (similar to BW system), white against red, you > hold following hand: > > Q2 > AQ63 > A108762 > 3 > > You open 1 diam. LHO doubles and partner redoubles, RHO passes. > Question 1: what do you now call? > AG : Sorry, answering a bit late, I'll do this before opening any answer messages. I bid 1H ; within classical theory, that shows 54 pattenr and limited strength. > At the table the player bid 2 diam. and partner bid 2 hearts. > (Opponents passed for the rest of the auction.) > Question 2: what do you now call? > AG : given that 2D was a weak rebid, my hand has become quite powerful. 4C seems the technical bid ; 4H if I fear 4C could be misunderstood. > The player bid 3 hearts and partner bid 3NT. > Question 3: what do you now call? > > AG : that's a bit difficult. Partner seems to have made one of those stopper-showing bids I abhor. But he still might hold 4 hearts, because he couldn't know I have 4. His hand could be something like Jxx - KJx - KQx - Axxx, in which case I'd pass, but also xxxx - KJx - KQx - Axx, in which case we should play 5D, or Jxx - KJxx - KQx - Axx (4H).. > The player in question passed. > > In asking other players for their opinions I found an interesting > variety of responses. > > Strong players mostly passed the redouble. Some bid 2 diam. Weaker > players all bid 2 diam. > Nobody showed their strong heart suit ???? > To question 2: strong players bid 4 clubs (splinter) unanimously. Weaker > players bid 3 hearts. > > To question 3: stronger players said, unanimously, the auction stinks! > But if in the situation they would bid 4 hearts. Weaker players were > divided, some bid 4 hearts, some passed. > > Naturally partner had psyched the 2 heart bid, he had: > > A743 > 84 > K54 > QJ104 > (Apparently the redouble showed 10+ points with any distribution.) > Your opinions please? JE > Amber. 3NT might be passed (see my first example) but it's far from obvious. Notice that, in this sequence, I didn't suspect a psyche but one moment. (the redouble is normal, isn't it ?) Best regards Alain From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu May 7 10:33:16 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 11:33:16 +0300 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A029CCC.8080003@jldata.fi> Arbhuston at aol.com wrote: > There are some unanswered questions here. If RHO passed intending it > to be a penalty pass (some still play it that way), or if his partner > thinks that's what he did, I think I should find out. Then, there is > the question of the meaning of the bid that I might take. Some still > play that one bids only if one has a singleton on the side or a rebid > of his suit (with a minimum hand, good suit, and little side > defense). This is an entirely playable method. If that is the case, > then a bid of 1H would be called for (suggesting a five-card or longer > D suit). If one is playing in a partnership without these or other > specific understandings, then a bid of 2D is certainly understandable. > > If 2D, and pard bids 2H, then I think 4C is pretty clear. (But not so > clear as to make it clear that he was fielding a psych). > > With regard to question 3, pulling to 4H, in my opinion, almost has no > logical alternatives. This, in an experienced partnership, would be > evidence of prior understandings being developed by a history of > psyching, and should be reported to a recorder (at least). > > However, if the pair does play that the rdbl shows 10+ with any > distribution, then it may be able to get off light on the basis of a > low skill quotient. > > Michael Huston I would bid one heart to RD and pass, I have good hand, I don't like penalty doubles at one level, and I plan to bid dia next to show not bad hand ( direct 2 dia). After 2 dia and 2 h Even with unknown pard, 2h stinks. He has not bid 1h ( I don't RD with every hand), I have not bid 1h, but he may still have his bid. I bid 3h, and give up to 3nt. But if we have exact agreement, that RD is must with any 10+ hands, I bid 4c to 2 h. Juuso > > In a message dated 5/6/2009 4:54:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > JffEstrsn at aol.com writes: > > Playing a "normal" system (similar to BW system), white against > red, you > hold following hand: > > Q2 > AQ63 > A108762 > 3 > > You open 1 diam. LHO doubles and partner redoubles, RHO passes. > Question 1: what do you now call? > > At the table the player bid 2 diam. and partner bid 2 hearts. > (Opponents passed for the rest of the auction.) > Question 2: what do you now call? > > The player bid 3 hearts and partner bid 3NT. > Question 3: what do you now call? > > The player in question passed. > > In asking other players for their opinions I found an interesting > variety of responses. > > Strong players mostly passed the redouble. Some bid 2 diam. Weaker > players all bid 2 diam. > > To question 2: strong players bid 4 clubs (splinter) unanimously. > Weaker > players bid 3 hearts. > > To question 3: stronger players said, unanimously, the auction > stinks! > But if in the situation they would bid 4 hearts. Weaker players were > divided, some bid 4 hearts, some passed. > > Naturally partner had psyched the 2 heart bid, he had: > > A743 > 84 > K54 > QJ104 > (Apparently the redouble showed 10+ points with any distribution.) > Your opinions please? JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now > . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 7 12:31:35 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 12:31:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please In-Reply-To: <4A029CCC.8080003@jldata.fi> References: <4A029CCC.8080003@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <4A02B887.8040403@ulb.ac.be> Lapinjatka a ?crit : > Arbhuston at aol.com wrote: > >> There are some unanswered questions here. If RHO passed intending it >> to be a penalty pass (some still play it that way), or if his partner >> thinks that's what he did, I think I should find out. Then, there is >> the question of the meaning of the bid that I might take. Some still >> play that one bids only if one has a singleton on the side or a rebid >> of his suit (with a minimum hand, good suit, and little side >> defense). This is an entirely playable method. If that is the case, >> then a bid of 1H would be called for (suggesting a five-card or longer >> D suit). If one is playing in a partnership without these or other >> specific understandings, then a bid of 2D is certainly understandable. >> >> If 2D, and pard bids 2H, then I think 4C is pretty clear. (But not so >> clear as to make it clear that he was fielding a psych). >> >> With regard to question 3, pulling to 4H, in my opinion, almost has no >> logical alternatives. This, in an experienced partnership, would be >> evidence of prior understandings being developed by a history of >> psyching, and should be reported to a recorder (at least). >> >> However, if the pair does play that the rdbl shows 10+ with any >> distribution, then it may be able to get off light on the basis of a >> low skill quotient. >> >> Michael Huston >> > I would bid one heart to RD and pass, I have good hand, I don't like > penalty doubles at one level, and I plan to bid dia next to show not bad > hand ( direct 2 dia). > After 2 dia and 2 h > Even with unknown pard, 2h stinks. He has not bid 1h ( I don't RD with > every hand), I have not bid 1h, but he may still have his bid. > I bid 3h, and give up to 3nt. But if we have exact agreement, that RD is > must with any 10+ hands, I bid 4c to 2 h. > AG : I think many partners would redouble on, say : AJ9x - KJ10x - Kx - xxx, hoping to double them (or let you double 2C) ; and what cant they do now, except but 2H over 2D ? But of course, when 3NT follows there isa snag somewhere. Notice that, facing this hand, I'd be far better off rebidding 1H. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 7 15:32:59 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 09:32:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <4A022DC4.1020308@talktalk.net> References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> <8730FF1E-B8D9-40D2-B34B-0F5A1FF4134B@starpower.net> <4A01A45F.2070504@talktalk.net> <21FBB595-0CA9-4D9F-A4FA-D129FA540798@starpower.net> <4A022DC4.1020308@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On May 6, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] > > Nigel misses the point. If I believe that my "interpretation is > obviously correct", it doesn't matter whether or not I am right. It > simply means that I will believe that the interpretation which I > believe to be obvious correct is in fact correct, because to believe > anything other than what I believe to be obvious in any kind of > partnership context -- even to "believe", meaninglessly, that the bid > was totally meaningless -- would require an agreement to that effect. > > If we were to take "general knowledge" out of the lawbook, then > prohibiting an agreement as to the meaning of a particular call in a > particular set of circumstances would be the same as prohibiting the > call itself, which is insupportable. If we take Nigel's logic to its > conclusion, it would be illegal perforce to accept an IB, since doing > so would require taking an action whose interpretation was > universally accepted as "obviously correct", and there ain't no such > thing. > > [Nigel] > I don't think I've missed the point. I understand Eric's argument > but am unconvinced by it. May we discuss an earlier simpler > example. Suppose ... > > [A] We are in a jurisdiction that forbids us to vary our agreements > depending on the option that we choose. > [B] You deal and open 4S; LHO overcalls with an *insufficient* 4H; > [C] Partner calls the director. Partner elects to accept the 4S bid > and doubles; RHO passes. > [D] Our systemic agreement is that partner's double of a > *sufficient* heart bid would have been *take-out* or *cards*. Your agreement over a sufficient 4H bid can't be relevant. Even an implicit agreement to treat IBs as the most closely analogous sufficient bid (so that double wouldn't be penalty here) is still an agreement as to how to treat IBs, and if agreements as to how to treat IBs are forbidden... > [E] I agree with Eric that the double of an insufficient bid is > *logically* *penalty*. ...then the "logical" meaning of a call over the IB -- its apparent meaning without any agreement whatsoever -- is the only legally available meaning; any other meaning would perforce be by agreement. > [F] But IMO, the law defines this as an agreement, if this has > previously occurred *or* we've discussed it. So if once the only possible non-agreed meaning occurs it becomes agreed, and agreements are prrohibited, then there are no legal meanings left. So you're stuck. You can't even have an agreement that the bid is meaningless, because that's still an agreement as to its meaning. > [G] Hence, is it isn't clear to me that it is legally OK to > interpret partner's double in a different way. Given A-F -- you can't have any agreement of any kind, and a previous occurence constitutes an agreement -- it isn't at all clear that it is legally OK to interpret partner's double in any way whatsoever. > Does anybody agree that the law is unclear? > Similar problems arise with player-options over calls out of turn. If you can't have any agreement of any kind, and if a previous occurence constitutes an agreement, then if your partnership meets the same situation for a second time, anything you do is an infraction; you effectively forfeit the board through no fault of your own. Deciding that you will treat any call over an IB as meaning the same as whatever it would mean in whatever you believe to be the most closely analogous non-IB auction is at least as much of an agreement as deciding that you will treat it according to whatever you believe to be its most logical interpretation. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 7 18:52:03 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions Message-ID: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com> In short, the idea is that spectators could try to correct basic errors in procedure (like fouling a board) or errors in score, IF the director requests it. Longer. A player had finished playing and was watching a board. She noticed that it was being agreed as making 4 when it actually made 3. She pointed this out, so they scored it correctly. Later, she asked if she did the right thing. Morally and by the spirit of the laws, I think so. To follow the letter of the law on this, all I have to do is request in advance that any spectators can speak to fact about the scoring of the board. Can I do that right now? I make that request. From tedying at yahoo.com Thu May 7 19:10:02 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions In-Reply-To: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <728991.45252.qm@web53311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Law 76B5 is pretty clear: "Law 76 - Spectators B. At the Table 5. 5. A spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game." I presume that means that unless asked specifically by the director, a spectator should not draw attention to an error, including a mis-scoring by both sides unless it becomes an issue. Therefore, if the director is called and there is a discrepency and the director appeals to the kibitzer, then the kibitzer can respond. Otherwise, the spectator should not say anything. I don't think a spectator should draw attention to an error unless a player says something to the director and the director asks. For one thing, Law 9A4 does say that no player is required to draw attention to a violation of law by their side. This means that it is up to the opposing side to catch such errors. Likewise, in the situation of a player seeing a mistake, it is up to the opponents to catch such a mistake and neither a responsibility nor a privilege of a spectator to correct such. If spectators could do more like this, I would discourage spectators. They aren't participants and they should act as if they are watching the event on TV instead of in person. -Ted. ----- Original Message ---- From: "rfrick at rfrick.info" To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 12:52:03 PM Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions In short, the idea is that spectators could try to correct basic errors in procedure (like fouling a board) or errors in score, IF the director requests it. Longer. A player had finished playing and was watching a board. She noticed that it was being agreed as making 4 when it actually made 3. She pointed this out, so they scored it correctly. Later, she asked if she did the right thing. Morally and by the spirit of the laws, I think so. To follow the letter of the law on this, all I have to do is request in advance that any spectators can speak to fact about the scoring of the board. Can I do that right now? I make that request. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 7 19:10:17 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:10:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] L27C -- premature replacement Message-ID: <33372.24.46.179.117.1241716217.squirrel@email.powweb.com> 1H 2D 2C/3D P P P I just had my first Premature Replacement ruling. The player bid 2C and corrected to 3D (a cue bid showing heart support) before I got to the table. The opps were happy to pass her out in their suit. I am very happy that I did not have to deal with any of the nonbarring corrections. But barring her partner and forcing her to keep her 3D bid seemed unduly harsh. And certainly did not lead to normal play. Wouldn't it have been enough to bar her partner and let her bid whatever she wanted? If there is some reason for the harshness, I would like to know, so I could explain it to players (if the need arises). Bob From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu May 7 19:23:20 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 19:23:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?L27C_--_premature_replacement?= In-Reply-To: <33372.24.46.179.117.1241716217.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <33372.24.46.179.117.1241716217.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <1M27JY-1x04I40@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> From: rfrick at rfrick.info > 1H ?2D ?2C/3D P > P ? P > > I just had my first Premature Replacement ruling. The player bid 2C > and corrected to 3D (a cue bid showing heart support) before I got to > the table. The opps were happy to pass her out in their suit. > > I am very happy that I did not have to deal with any of the nonbarring > corrections. > > But barring her partner and forcing her to keep her 3D bid seemed > unduly harsh. And certainly did not lead to normal play. Wouldn't it > have been enough to bar her partner and let her bid whatever she > wanted? > > If there is some reason for the harshness, I would like to know, so I > could explain it to players (if the need arises). Ton Kooijman's commentary on the 2007 edition of the laws: "There are more changes: being more lenient in 27B1 the laws are more severe in B3 and C. An attempt to replace the insufficient call with a bid cannot be ignored anymore. It stands if it is legal (unless LHO wants to accept the insufficient bid) and this law should be applied. Doubles or redoubles not allowed in accordance with B1(b) are cancelled and replaced by a legal call; partner has to Pass throughout." Max Bavin's lecture on Law 27 at the EBL seminar in Torino 2008: "Note also the 2007 code makes it quite clear what should happen if the IB is corrected before the TD arrives ? the new call stands with whatever further rectifications may then be required. " Peter Eidt: So, it's quite clear that this change was purposeful to "punish" those players that do not wait for the director. From john at asimere.com Thu May 7 19:38:03 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 18:38:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please References: Message-ID: <5326DF0282814B1DA00BB1914ADF626A@JOHN> Did the opponents double? Yes Are the H likely to split 4-1? Yes Have I got a likely running minor? Yes Am I insane to pull 3N to 4H? Yes. Is 3H rather than 4C/4D an underbid? Yes Does 4C/4D rule out 3N? Yes Is it ok to underbid a bit at mps? Yes Are we wasting the TD's and ACs time? yes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Arbhuston at aol.com To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] your opinions please There are some unanswered questions here. If RHO passed intending it to be a penalty pass (some still play it that way), or if his partner thinks that's what he did, I think I should find out. Then, there is the question of the meaning of the bid that I might take. Some still play that one bids only if one has a singleton on the side or a rebid of his suit (with a minimum hand, good suit, and little side defense). This is an entirely playable method. If that is the case, then a bid of 1H would be called for (suggesting a five-card or longer D suit). If one is playing in a partnership without these or other specific understandings, then a bid of 2D is certainly understandable. If 2D, and pard bids 2H, then I think 4C is pretty clear. (But not so clear as to make it clear that he was fielding a psych). With regard to question 3, pulling to 4H, in my opinion, almost has no logical alternatives. This, in an experienced partnership, would be evidence of prior understandings being developed by a history of psyching, and should be reported to a recorder (at least). However, if the pair does play that the rdbl shows 10+ with any distribution, then it may be able to get off light on the basis of a low skill quotient. Michael Huston In a message dated 5/6/2009 4:54:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time, JffEstrsn at aol.com writes: Playing a "normal" system (similar to BW system), white against red, you hold following hand: Q2 AQ63 A108762 3 You open 1 diam. LHO doubles and partner redoubles, RHO passes. Question 1: what do you now call? At the table the player bid 2 diam. and partner bid 2 hearts. (Opponents passed for the rest of the auction.) Question 2: what do you now call? The player bid 3 hearts and partner bid 3NT. Question 3: what do you now call? The player in question passed. In asking other players for their opinions I found an interesting variety of responses. Strong players mostly passed the redouble. Some bid 2 diam. Weaker players all bid 2 diam. To question 2: strong players bid 4 clubs (splinter) unanimously. Weaker players bid 3 hearts. To question 3: stronger players said, unanimously, the auction stinks! But if in the situation they would bid 4 hearts. Weaker players were divided, some bid 4 hearts, some passed. Naturally partner had psyched the 2 heart bid, he had: A743 84 K54 QJ104 (Apparently the redouble showed 10+ points with any distribution.) Your opinions please? JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20090507/15f43a66/attachment-0001.html From john at asimere.com Thu May 7 19:41:42 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 18:41:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions References: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <92005E18E819410481B5935B5909CD4B@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:52 PM Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions > In short, the idea is that spectators could try to correct basic errors in > procedure (like fouling a board) or errors in score, IF the director > requests it. > > Longer. A player had finished playing and was watching a board. She > noticed that it was being agreed as making 4 when it actually made 3. She > pointed this out, so they scored it correctly. Later, she asked if she did > the right thing. If she told you she'd seen it you'd have to fix it. She just cut out the middleman. > > Morally and by the spirit of the laws, I think so. To follow the letter of > the law on this, all I have to do is request in advance that any > spectators can speak to fact about the scoring of the board. Can I do that > right now? I make that request. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From taigabridge at hotmail.com Thu May 7 23:34:32 2009 From: taigabridge at hotmail.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:34:32 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of Message-ID: True story from last night, and all too common in club games, where players "don't like to bother the director" or "don't want to upset the new players by involving the director." I was playing at another table and overheard the following. (It wasn't my night to direct, and the actual playing director - my partner - did absolutely nothing.) At the next table, two novices who think they know everything are playing against a little old lady and a complete beginner. Knowitall says to the beginner, "that's insufficient." (Nobody calls for a director. I roll my eyes.) Beginner puts her bid away and pulls out a pass card. Knowitall says to the beginner, "no, you can't do that, you have to make it sufficient." Beginner looks tearful and confused, but knowitall#2 nods, little old lady says nothing, and nobody calls for a director. Beginner makes her bid sufficient, and goes for -200, a cold bottom. I spoke to the knowitalls privately later, and told them they needed to call the director. Their reply (as I suspected it would be) was "why? You're just going to tell her she needs to make it sufficient, aren't you?" Soooo.... aside from the obvious need for better player education... 1) If you are directing and overhear this, at what point if any should you act? IMO 81C6 is clear, but we have a tradition on this list - I forget the basis for it - that directors shouldn't approach a table unless summoned to it. 2) Supposing you don't get involved while the hand is in progress, do you adjust the score after the fact? "Making up rules that aren't in the rule book and tricking beginners into believing them, causing beginners to get bottoms" certainly sounds like an infraction with no specific penalty to me, that a director ought to be redressing... GRB _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 8 00:34:41 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:34:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A01955C.90008@jldata.fi> Message-ID: >>>What kind of trick question is this? >>> >>>Best regards >>>Matthias >>My kind of trick question. >> >>If the auction was perceived by West to be: >> >>SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >>--- --- --- Pass >>1H Pass 2H 3D >>4H X >> >>then West's double, according to the East-West system, was a >>responsive double, showing both black suits. Matthias Berghaus: >I am sorry, Richard, but this is too mind-boggling to contemplate. > >East initially passed, West could not act over 1H, and now a >double of 4H is _responsive_, telling the world about an enormous >misfit and asking to be either redoubled or be doubled somewhere >for about 1400?? Richard Hills: I fully agree. In my preferred Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay system (notes emailed on request), our methods include zero responsive doubles and very few negative doubles. But the best bridge writer in the world, Ron Klinger (who has also been a top Aussie international expert for many decades) has brain- washed many Aussies into playing most doubles as non-penalty. So my current second-favourite partner, Chris Quail, dragooned me into playing negative and responsive doubles up to and including 4H. A misfit is not necessarily so. If South's leap to 4H is based on a 9-card heart fit, then East-West are guaranteed at least an 8- card fit in their own best suit. Matthias Berghaus: >In fact I can`t think of any hand unable to act over 1H that could >now offer a "cards" or "responsive" double. Richard Hills: East-West normally eschew off-shape takeout doubles of 1H (except when holding strong single-suiters with 17 hcp or better, or strong balanced shapes with 19 hcp or better). Ergo, if West held 14 hcp with a 4=3=2=4 shape, West would pass 1H and back in with a responsive double of 4H once East chose to overcall 3D. >>This led to an off-topic defensive problem: >> >>SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >>--- --- --- Pass(1) >>1H Pass 2H 5D >>4H (2) X (3) Pass Pass >>Pass >> >>(1) Only 11 hcp >>(2) Written bidding, not bidding boxes, so your 5D bid was mistaken >> for a 3D bid by the slightly dyslexic South >>(3) You summoned the Director immediately yourself before pard could >> take any inadvertent action. When the Director explained the Law >> 27 options to pard, he intentionally accepted the insufficient >> bid, then deliberately doubled for penalties. >> >>Pard's opening lead was the four of diamonds. >> >> Dummy >> J932 >> J92 >> 8 >> QJ972 You >> K65 >> --- >> AKJT97653 >> T >> >>You played the king of diamonds and declarer followed with the deuce. >> >>Plan your deuced defence. Matthias Berghaus: >Since I can stand a S switch from pard I play a club. Playing a D >clears up the situation in that suit, but may cost us the club trick >(unlikely, though). Anyway, I want to cash all our fast tricks early >and wait for the trump winners. Richard Hills: As a defender, Matthias is a superb Director. If one chooses to follow the "cash all our fast tricks early" strategy, then returning a club at trick two is a zero percent line. Declarer's fast club losers cannot disappear on the spades, but declarer's fast spade losers could well disappear on the clubs. For example, this could be the complete lie of the cards: Dummy J932 J92 8 Pard QJ972 You AQ2 K65 QT876 --- 4 AKJT97653 8654 Declarer T T87 AK543 Q2 AK3 Declarer will discard all three spade losers on the clubs as pard ruffs in with a natural trump trick, -790 instead of +800. (Admittedly, if declarer actually held those South cards, then declarer rebidding 4H showed the optimism of a funky gibbon. But all Aussie experts, including myself, are funky gibbons.) So at the table, when I elected to choose the "cash all our fast tricks early strategy", I returned the spade five at trick two. Juuso Lapinjatka: >I think only we need to protect is pard's tricks in hearts, say KQ10x, >AQ10x > >I return diamond ace. Richard Hills: Yes, declarer (who will represent Australian in the Open division of the 2009 Asia-Pacific Championships in Macau) erred by not automatically false-carding with the queen of diamonds at trick one, which might have caused me to think that pard's opening lead of the four of diamonds was top of a doubleton 4 and 2. The actual complete deal: Jamie Ebery J932 J92 8 Chris Quail QJ972 Richard Hills 87 K65 QT853 --- 4 AKJT97653 A8653 Leigh Gold T AQT4 AK764 Q2 K4 Only the ace of diamonds at trick two defeats the contract, as that permits pard to discard one of his two losing spades. Matthias Berghaus: >Alternatives? What alternatives? I am a passed hand, pard doubled 4H, >possibly with 4 trump tricks and an Ace or two. OK, there is no >further risk in removing the double, partner will terminate our >partnership as soon as my hand becomes known, but at least he will not >shoot at me now... Richard Hills: I agree with Matthias that my biggest mistake was in the bidding, but if this was a Bridge World "You Be The Judge" problem some might select as my worst call not my first round pass, but rather my unimaginative third round pass. If I had been the truly glass-half-full funky gibbon I was in my youth, I would have observed the huge discrepancy between my offensive playing strength and defensive cashing tricks, so I would have removed pard's penalty double of 4H to a choice-of-contracts 4NT. At my team-mates table East opened a routine 5D, South chose a routine penalty double, and my team-mates scored a routine +200. Ergo, if I had scored +630 instead of my actual -790, my side would have gained 24 more imps than it actually did. Meanwhile, in another match, the second-best bridge player in Canberra was also sitting East. He chose the best opening call, which gained him imps in an unexpected way. SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Ian Arjuna Robinson De Livera --- --- --- 1D (1) X (2) 1H 1S 5D X Pass Pass Pass (1) Too strong to open 5D; there are many possible West hands which would pass a 5D opening bid when 6D (or even 7D) is cold. (2) Too strong to overcall 1H Since Arjuna chose the opening call of 1D, rather than Pass, North's contribution to the auction was a response of 1S, rather than a raise to 2H. South correctly deduced that one of the reasons for Arjuna's exuberant bidding was a heart void, but incorrectly deduced from North's 1S bid that the best defensive line was to try the ace of spades at trick one, then continue spades at trick two. So a spade ruff in dummy at trick three meant +950 to the good guys. This score in the penultimate qualifying match helped Arjuna's team reach the Grand Final of the Adelaide Autumn Nationals. His top- seeded opponents included the partnership of the best bridge writer in the world, Ron Klinger, playing with the best bridge player in Canberra, David Hoffman. David Hoffman has designed a mathematically sound rating system for players at the Canberra Bridge Club. David occasionally tweaks this rating system to make it mathematically sounder. By sheer coincidence David is usually the top-ranked player on the Hoffman rating scale. But by sheer coincidence Arjuna and team-mates thrashed their top- seeded opponents, leading by a big margin at the end of every quarter. See BBO for details. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 8 00:54:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:54:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <15308820-83D3-4160-A2D7-34A5645B7819@starpower.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>If one always intends to accept RHO's insufficient bid pursuant to >>Law 27A it is entirely optional and entirely Lawful to either draw >>attention to the irregularity or decline to do so. My personal Law >>27A preference is to save the time of the Director and everyone else >>by immediately calling over the insufficient bid whenever I judge >>that Law 27A is the most advantageous option for my side. >> >>Of course, because of my personal Law 27A preference, the infracting >>opponents never know whether I have intentionally or unintentionally >>accepted the insufficient bid. Nor does pard know. C'est la vie. Eric Landau: >While the law itself does not seem to preclude Richard's practice, >Bob raises the question of whether it may be ethically questionable. >If Richard's partner is alive to the likelihood that Richard may be >intentionally accepting an insufficient bid, while Richard's overt >actions suggest to the opponents that he did so unintentionally, that >would certainly at least carry the odor of deliberate deception. [snip] WBF Code of Practice, page 6, on Ethics: "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." Richard Hills: Perhaps a truly generous attitude to any blml opponents I might meet at the table is to give this Pre-Alert: "I make bridge errors in bidding and defence approximately every five minutes. As evidence, see my previous posting on this thread. But I make mechanical errors (such as revokes, or failure to notice that RHO's bid is insufficient) approximately every five years. Ergo, if you are wondering whether partner or a Hillsian declarer has revoked, it is almost certainly pard, so now is the time to ask a Law 61B3 question before pard's revoke becomes established." :-) :-) Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri May 8 02:28:47 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 20:28:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Gordon Bower" writes: > At the next table, two novices who think they know everything are playing > against a > little old lady and a complete beginner. Knowitall says to the beginner, > "that's insufficient." > (Nobody calls for a director. I roll my eyes.) Beginner puts her bid away and > pulls out a > pass card. Knowitall says to the beginner, "no, you can't do that, you have to > make it > sufficient." Beginner looks tearful and confused, but knowitall#2 nods, little > old lady > says nothing, and nobody calls for a director. Beginner makes her bid > sufficient, and > goes for -200, a cold bottom. >2) Supposing you don't get involved while the hand is in progress, do you >adjust the >score after the fact? "Making up rules that aren't in the rule book and >tricking beginners >into believing them, causing beginners to get bottoms" certainly sounds like an >infraction >with no specific penalty to me, that a director ought to be redressing... L9A2: No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters... L12A3: The Director may award an adjusted score if an incorrect penalty has been paid. The Knowitall who made his own (incorrect) ruling damaged the opponents, who may not have known that they should call a director. Normally, when a ruling is made at the table by a player, both sides should get the worst of it, but since the offender was a beginner, I would adjust to what the score would have been given the correct ruling, treating the insufficient bidder as non-offending for purposes of L12C2. (Thus, if -110 and -140 were both likely scores if she had passed as allowed, I would award -110.) And PP's for both sides are in order. For the beginner, that would just be a warning about her obligation to call the Director whenever something goes wrong; for the Knowitalls, an actual penalty is probably correct. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 8 03:51:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:51:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the Star Trekkin' novelty song, Lieutenant Uhura sang: There's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow. There's Klingons on the starboard bow, scrape 'em off, Jim. Eric Landau noted: [snip] >Deciding that you will treat any call over an IB as meaning the >same as whatever it would mean in whatever you believe to be the >most closely analogous non-IB auction is at least as much of an >agreement as deciding that you will treat it according to >whatever you believe to be its most logical interpretation. Richard Hills asks: And what if you then draw the wrong analogy? Law 40B3: "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity." Richard Hills notes: The ACBL Laws Commission has disallowed all such variations. So "Insufficient rebid" thread, 26th October 2006: Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, none vul. You, South, hold: Q63 93 KJ53 AK87 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1NT (1) 1H 1S (2) ? (3) (1) 11-14 hcp balanced. Denies a 5-card major and denies a 6- card minor. Does not necessarily deny a 7-card major. (2) In tempo. North did not elect to draw attention to West's irregularity, but North is Richard Hills. (3) East asks about the implicit partnership understanding of the insufficient but legal 1S. Relevant explicit partnership understandings: (a) 1 banana - (1H) - Double = negative, promising 4 spades (b) 1NT - (2H) - Double = drop dead penalty (c) 1 banana - (1H) - 1S = forcing, promising 5+ spades (d) 1NT - (2H) - 2S = non-forcing, promising 4+ spades What explanation do you give for the insufficient but legal 1S??? If your explanation does not correspond to partner's cards, is an ACBL TD required to rule: "We come in peace. Shoot to kill."??? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 8 06:35:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:35:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <728991.45252.qm@web53311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lois McMaster Bujold, Cetaganda, Chapter 15: Vorreedi had gone beyond emotion to silence. He spoke to Miles only once, in chill tones. "What _did_ you think you were doing, Vorkosigan?" "I stopped the Cetagandan Empire from breaking up into eight aggressively expanding units. I derailed plans for a war by. some of them with Barrayar. I survived an assassination attempt, and helped catch three high-ranking traitors. Admittedly, they weren't _our_ traitors, but still. Oh. And I solved a murder. That's enough for one trip, I hope." Vorreedi struggled with himself for a moment, then bit out helplessly, "_Are_ you a special agent, or not?" On a need-to-know list ... Vorreedi didn't. Not really, not at this point. Miles sighed inwardly. "Well, if not ... I _succeeded_ like one, didn't I?" Ivan winced. Vorreedi sat back with no further comment, but radiating exasperation. Miles smiled grimly, in the dark. Ted Ying needs to know: >Law 76B5 is pretty clear: > "Law 76 - Spectators > B. At the Table > 5. 5. A spectator at the table shall not draw >attention to any aspect of the game." > >I presume that means that unless asked specifically by the >director, a spectator should not draw attention to an error, >including a mis-scoring by both sides unless it becomes an >issue. [snip] Richard Hills knows a need: It seems to me that Law 76B5 is not "pretty clear", since it has just been slightly misinterpreted by Ted Ying. A spectator only has the status of a spectator During A Session (see the Law 76 footnote). Ergo, after the end of the session (Law 8C) a spectator is no longer a spectator, so the former spectator may freely draw a player's attention to her scoring error. If such a former spectator acts promptly post-session, then the Law 79C correction period will not yet have expired, so the erring player may seek a score rectification from the Director under Law 79B2: "If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side's score." Richard Hills concurs: However, Ted Ying's main point is unquestionably correct. It would be grossly improper for a current spectator to summon the Director before the round ends, thus forcing upon the Director an "obligation to increase a side's score". As it says in the classics, at the table a spectator should be seen and not heard, even if the jack of clubs squirts cider into the spectator's ear. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Fri May 8 08:34:56 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:34:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c9cfa7$1a8c7330$4fa55990$@no> On Behalf Of Gordon Bower > True story from last night, and all too common in club games, where players "don't > like to bother the director" or "don't want to upset the new players by involving the > director." > > I was playing at another table and overheard the following. (It wasn't my night to > direct, and the actual playing director - my partner - did absolutely nothing.) > > At the next table, two novices who think they know everything are playing against > a little old lady and a complete beginner. Knowitall says to the beginner, "that's > insufficient." (Nobody calls for a director. I roll my eyes.) Beginner puts her bid > away and pulls out a pass card. Knowitall says to the beginner, "no, you can't do > that, you have to make it sufficient." Beginner looks tearful and confused, but > knowitall#2 nods, little old lady says nothing, and nobody calls for a director. > Beginner makes her bid sufficient, and goes for -200, a cold bottom. > > I spoke to the knowitalls privately later, and told them they needed to call the > director. Their reply (as I suspected it would be) was "why? You're just going to tell > her she needs to make it sufficient, aren't you?" > > Soooo.... aside from the obvious need for better player education... > > 1) If you are directing and overhear this, at what point if any should you act? IMO > 81C6 is clear, but we have a tradition on this list - I forget the basis for it - that > directors shouldn't approach a table unless summoned to it. > > 2) Supposing you don't get involved while the hand is in progress, do you adjust > the score after the fact? "Making up rules that aren't in the rule book and tricking > beginners into believing them, causing beginners to get bottoms" certainly sounds > like an infraction with no specific penalty to me, that a director ought to be > redressing... > > GRB I use to say that the primary duty for the Director is to do his best so that everybody feel they have had a pleasant event and look forward to come back next time. Do you really think this beginner feels that way here? In situations like this with beginners involved I think the Director should act immediately to show the beginner that he cares for and protects them. And I do not consider such action by the Director to be in conflict with the general principle that he should only approach a table when being summoned to it. Regards Sven From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri May 8 09:01:24 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 17:01:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of In-Reply-To: <000001c9cfa7$1a8c7330$4fa55990$@no> References: <000001c9cfa7$1a8c7330$4fa55990$@no> Message-ID: <200905080701.n4871O2e008458@mail11.syd.optusnet.com.au> Sven observed: >In situations like this with beginners involved I think the Director should >act immediately to show the beginner that he cares for and protects them. >And I do not consider such action by the Director to be in conflict with the >general principle that he should only approach a table when being summoned >to it. > >Regards Sven Indeed. Most often less experienced players approach me after the game with stories of the kind "she told me she could see my card and so I had to play it", or "your partner hesitated so you have to pass", etc. By then, unfortunately, it is too late to rectify or protect these put-upon pairs. Even when you let them know that it is never wrong to call the director, they are always reluctant when given "expert" direction at the table, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 8 09:20:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 17:20:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower, question one: >1) If you are directing and overhear this, at what point if any >should you act? IMO 81C3 is clear, but we have a tradition on this >list - I forget the basis for it - that directors shouldn't >approach a table unless summoned to it. Richard Hills, answer one: In an earlier posting on this thread, David Grabiner gave a superb answer to Gordon's question two, so I will not canvass that issue again. Law 20F5(a), first sentence: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made." Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: The current law is plainly stated; the words "in any manner" allow of no exceptions. Richard Hills, 28th August 2008: Oops, wrong Law. Grattan was then discussing what now is the renumbered (and slightly rewritten) Law 81C3: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: But note also the word "rectify". This covers returning the position to normality, restoration of equity, but it does not necessarily require that any penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director often has room for manoeuvre in this respect: time limits intervene, there are such provisions as those in Law 11B, and so on. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, answer one: "At what point if any should you act"? {Polemic mode on} The basis for the tradition of not acting is that many blmlers, such as David Burn, fallaciously believe that the contextual definition of "equity" as used by the Lawbook, most importantly in Law 84D: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12)." is synonymous with "Protect The Field". PTF has long been an obsession of that campaigner against The Rule of Law, Bobby Wolff (whose philosophy on due process has alarming congruence with that of the Fijian autocrat, Frank Bainarama, who solved quibbles about the legality of his regime by sacking all the Fijian judges). William Shakespeare (1564-1616): "I dote on his very absence." So those fallacious Wolffian blmers even go so far as to argue, with zero Lawful justification, that a Director should turn a blind eye and deaf ear to any irregularity for which Law 9B1 is not invoked. Their fallacious Wolffian reasoning is that it is not "equitable" to all of The Field if a Director randomly observes and rectifies an irregularity at one table, but the Director then damages The Field because the Director randomly fails to observe another table at the time another non-Law 9B1 irregularity occurs at that other table. However, nowhere in The Fabulous Law Book is The Field mentioned. Rather, if The Man From Mars (Valentine Michael Smith) grokked the Laws, he would come to the conclusion that "equity" refers to a single non-offending side at a single table. {Polemic mode off} On the other hand ... As Grattan Endicott noted above, although "'in any manner' allows of no exceptions", the Director can pick and choose the _timing_ of the unexceptional rectification. A classic example occurred at the January 2008 South-West Pacific Teams. The 1997 Lawbook was still in effect, and the table Director stuffed up a ruling on the notorious 1997 Law 25B, by forgetting to mention to the offending player that he could (then, not now) elect to intentionally change a ridiculous call to a sensible call at the cost of scoring no better than -3 imps on the board. The canny Director in charge, Laurie Kelso, told the table Director to wait until the board had been scored up by the two teams before applying any Law 81C3 rectification. Sure enough, the non-offending side had had a bigger debacle at the other (non-irregular) table. So the offending side did not get any damage, since they gained imps rather than scoring -3 imps. Neither were the non-offending side damaged, since the NOS lost less imps than they would have had the OS been given their 1997 Law 25B right to intentionally change a ridiculous call to a sensible call. What's the problem? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 8 09:51:02 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 09:51:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: References: <4A00305D.6080800@talktalk.net> <8730FF1E-B8D9-40D2-B34B-0F5A1FF4134B@starpower.net> <4A01A45F.2070504@talktalk.net> <21FBB595-0CA9-4D9F-A4FA-D129FA540798@starpower.net> <4A022DC4.1020308@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <4A03E466.2030901@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On May 6, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >> [Eric Landau] >> >> Nigel misses the point. If I believe that my "interpretation is >> obviously correct", it doesn't matter whether or not I am right. It >> simply means that I will believe that the interpretation which I >> believe to be obvious correct is in fact correct, because to believe >> anything other than what I believe to be obvious in any kind of >> partnership context -- even to "believe", meaninglessly, that the bid >> was totally meaningless -- would require an agreement to that effect. >> >> If we were to take "general knowledge" out of the lawbook, then >> prohibiting an agreement as to the meaning of a particular call in a >> particular set of circumstances would be the same as prohibiting the >> call itself, which is insupportable. If we take Nigel's logic to its >> conclusion, it would be illegal perforce to accept an IB, since doing >> so would require taking an action whose interpretation was >> universally accepted as "obviously correct", and there ain't no such >> thing. >> >> [Nigel] >> I don't think I've missed the point. I understand Eric's argument >> but am unconvinced by it. May we discuss an earlier simpler >> example. Suppose ... >> >> [A] We are in a jurisdiction that forbids us to vary our agreements >> depending on the option that we choose. >> [B] You deal and open 4S; LHO overcalls with an *insufficient* 4H; >> [C] Partner calls the director. Partner elects to accept the 4S bid >> and doubles; RHO passes. >> [D] Our systemic agreement is that partner's double of a >> *sufficient* heart bid would have been *take-out* or *cards*. >> > > Your agreement over a sufficient 4H bid can't be relevant. Even an > implicit agreement to treat IBs as the most closely analogous > sufficient bid (so that double wouldn't be penalty here) is still an > agreement as to how to treat IBs, and if agreements as to how to > treat IBs are forbidden... > AG : IIRC, it's having *another* agreement when the bid is an IB that can be forbidden. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri May 8 10:27:12 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:27:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/5/8 : > In the Star Trekkin' novelty song, Lieutenant Uhura sang: > > There's Klingons on the starboard bow, > ? ? ? ? ?starboard bow, > ? ? ? ? ?starboard bow. > There's Klingons on the starboard bow, > ? ? ? ? ?scrape 'em off, Jim. > > Eric Landau noted: > > [snip] > >>Deciding that you will treat any call over an IB as meaning the >>same as whatever it would mean in whatever you believe to be the >>most closely analogous non-IB auction is at least as much of an >>agreement as deciding that you will treat it according to >>whatever you believe to be its most logical interpretation. > > Richard Hills asks: > > And what if you then draw the wrong analogy? > > Law 40B3: > > "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a > partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play > following a question asked, a response to a question, or any > irregularity." > > Richard Hills notes: > > The ACBL Laws Commission has disallowed all such variations. ?So > > "Insufficient rebid" thread, 26th October 2006: > > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, none vul. > > You, South, hold: > > Q63 > 93 > KJ53 > AK87 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? 1NT (1) > 1H ? ? ? ?1S (2) ? ?? (3) > > (1) 11-14 hcp balanced. ?Denies a 5-card major and denies a 6- > ? ?card minor. ?Does not necessarily deny a 7-card major. > (2) In tempo. ?North did not elect to draw attention to West's > ? ?irregularity, but North is Richard Hills. > (3) East asks about the implicit partnership understanding of the > ? ?insufficient but legal 1S. 1S is sufficient, since it higher than the last previous bid: 1H. :-) > > Relevant explicit partnership understandings: > > (a) 1 banana - (1H) - Double = negative, promising 4 spades > (b) 1NT - (2H) - Double ? ? ?= drop dead penalty > (c) 1 banana - (1H) - 1S ? ? = forcing, promising 5+ spades > (d) 1NT - (2H) - 2S ? ? ? ? ?= non-forcing, promising 4+ spades > > What explanation do you give for the insufficient but legal 1S??? None, since we have no agreement. Opps have to use their own common sense and general bridge knowledge. Of course I explain our agreements (a)-(d) above, and any meta-agreements we might have that could matter. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > If your explanation does not correspond to partner's cards, is an > ACBL TD required to rule: > > "We come in peace. Shoot to kill."??? > > > Best wishes > > R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 8 12:31:17 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 12:31:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A0409F5.9090502@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > But the best bridge writer in the world, Ron Klinger (who has also > been a top Aussie international expert for many decades) has brain- > washed many Aussies into playing most doubles as non-penalty. So > my current second-favourite partner, Chris Quail, dragooned me into > playing negative and responsive doubles up to and including 4H. > > A misfit is not necessarily so. If South's leap to 4H is based on > a 9-card heart fit, then East-West are guaranteed at least an 8- > card fit in their own best suit. > > AG : sure, but that would mean West has forgotten to overcall (1S or 2C or some 2-suited overcall) on his former turn. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 8 13:33:01 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 07:33:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of (spectator obligations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 07 May 2009 17:34:32 -0400, Gordon Bower wrote: > > > True story from last night, and all too common in club games, where > players "don't like to bother the director" or "don't want to upset the > new players by involving the director." > > I was playing at another table and overheard the following. (It wasn't > my night to direct, and the actual playing director - my partner - did > absolutely nothing.) > > At the next table, two novices who think they know everything are > playing against a little old lady and a complete beginner. Knowitall > says to the beginner, "that's insufficient." (Nobody calls for a > director. I roll my eyes.) Beginner puts her bid away and pulls out a > pass card. Knowitall says to the beginner, "no, you can't do that, you > have to make it sufficient." Beginner looks tearful and confused, but > knowitall#2 nods, little old lady says nothing, and nobody calls for a > director. Beginner makes her bid sufficient, and goes for -200, a cold > bottom. > > I spoke to the knowitalls privately later, and told them they needed to > call the director. Their reply (as I suspected it would be) was "why? > You're just going to tell her she needs to make it sufficient, aren't > you?" > > Soooo.... aside from the obvious need for better player education... > > 1) If you are directing and overhear this, at what point if any should > you act? IMO 81C6 is clear, but we have a tradition on this list - I > forget the basis for it - that directors shouldn't approach a table > unless summoned to it. > > 2) Supposing you don't get involved while the hand is in progress, do > you adjust the score after the fact? "Making up rules that aren't in the > rule book and tricking beginners into believing them, causing beginners > to get bottoms" certainly sounds like an infraction with no specific > penalty to me, that a director ought to be redressing... It seems coincidental that this relates (IMO) to the spectator actions issue. The players who are not at the table are either "spectators" at the table, or their rights and responsibilities are not defined in the laws. (And hence they can do whatever they want, or they can't do anything. I am guessing nothing, though they seem to feel entitled to correct scoring errors.) I think the responsibilities of nonplayers should be increased for the 2018 laws. Meanwhile, I now request all of my nonplayers to attempt to correct possible errors in rulings at the table. Ideally, this is calling me when I am not there, or telling me their opinion if I am there. So, if I am twisting the laws around into the shape I want, players are responsible for calling me if they overhear an incorrect ruling at another table. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 8 13:54:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:54:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003501c9cfd3$ce4cd280$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Law 40B3: >> >> "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a >> partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play >> following a question asked, a response to a question, or any >> irregularity." >> >> Richard Hills notes: >> >> The ACBL Laws Commission has disallowed all such >> variations. >> +=+ We may note that a prior agreement to vary an understanding in one of the given situations is such a prior agreement nevertheless, even if there is no understanding as to what the change of meaning will be. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 8 15:40:42 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 09:40:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <003501c9cfd3$ce4cd280$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <003501c9cfd3$ce4cd280$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <38B2E75B-177C-4EA2-A65B-06FD478030B3@starpower.net> On May 8, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Grattan wrote: >>> Law 40B3: >>> >>> "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a >>> partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play >>> following a question asked, a response to a question, or any >>> irregularity." >>> >>> Richard Hills notes: >>> >>> The ACBL Laws Commission has disallowed all such >>> variations. > > +=+ We may note that a prior agreement to vary an understanding > in one of the given situations is such a prior agreement nevertheless, > even if there is no understanding as to what the change of meaning > will be. But since the ACBL has flatly disallowed any understandings whatsoever (including implicit ones) with regard to actions over irregularities, it is illegal to have some understanding from which you do not vary. Thus it becomes illegal, if Grattan is correct, to have a prior agreement that your actions must have some meaning of some kind, as opposed to being completely meaningless. Thus if you make a bid in this situation which your partner believes means something -- anything at all -- you now have an illegal implicit agreement. The bottom line here is that it is a logical absurdity to forbid *implicit* agreements *of any kind* in any situation which may arise more than once. There is simply no interpretation possible that makes such a regulation workable. I know whereof I speak, because I have been there: in front of a committee for the infraction of having employed a partnership agreement with respect to actions over an opponent's irregularity. I argued (definitively demonstrated, IMOHO) that I was in a situation in which there was no way I could take any action whatsoever without committing an irregularity. After deliberating, the committee imposed no penalty but did issue a warning; they told me I should "never do it again". Asked precisely what it was that they were instructing me never to do again, they were unable to answer. This was decades ago, and I've still never figured it out. (Grusome details of this incident have been posted to BLML in the past, and are available on request.) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri May 8 16:50:05 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 16:50:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A04469D.4010901@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > > Jamie Ebery > J932 > J92 > 8 > Chris Quail QJ972 Richard Hills > 87 K65 > QT853 --- > 4 AKJT97653 > A8653 Leigh Gold T > AQT4 > AK764 > Q2 > K4 > _This_ is a penalty double opposite a passed hand? Wow. I have no idea how players in Canberra view the situation, but over here 3D (or 5, for that matter) does not guarantee any defensive trick(s). I can imagine lots o positions where 4H is cold, even though S hold AKJ9x in hearts. It may work, OK, but West should not complain if it doesn`t. Matthias From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 9 06:52:07 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 00:52:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions In-Reply-To: <92005E18E819410481B5935B5909CD4B@JOHN> References: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <92005E18E819410481B5935B5909CD4B@JOHN> Message-ID: On Thu, 07 May 2009 13:41:42 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:52 PM > Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions > > >> In short, the idea is that spectators could try to correct basic errors >> in >> procedure (like fouling a board) or errors in score, IF the director >> requests it. >> >> Longer. A player had finished playing and was watching a board. She >> noticed that it was being agreed as making 4 when it actually made 3. >> She >> pointed this out, so they scored it correctly. Later, she asked if she >> did >> the right thing. > > If she told you she'd seen it you'd have to fix it. She just cut out the > middleman. I doubt I could fix it. Are you being realistic? I would have just looked at her and told her there was nothing I could do. From john at asimere.com Sat May 9 18:00:02 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 17:00:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions References: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com><92005E18E819410481B5935B5909CD4B@JOHN> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions > On Thu, 07 May 2009 13:41:42 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst > wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:52 PM >> Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions >> >> >>> In short, the idea is that spectators could try to correct basic errors >>> in >>> procedure (like fouling a board) or errors in score, IF the director >>> requests it. >>> >>> Longer. A player had finished playing and was watching a board. She >>> noticed that it was being agreed as making 4 when it actually made 3. >>> She >>> pointed this out, so they scored it correctly. Later, she asked if she >>> did >>> the right thing. >> >> If she told you she'd seen it you'd have to fix it. She just cut out the >> middleman. > > I doubt I could fix it. Are you being realistic? I would have just looked > at her and told her there was nothing I could do. You'd better be sure to fix it :) Duties of a TD. I'm serious. John > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 9 18:25:34 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 12:25:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions In-Reply-To: References: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <92005E18E819410481B5935B5909CD4B@JOHN> Message-ID: On Sat, 09 May 2009 12:00:02 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 5:52 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions > > >> On Thu, 07 May 2009 13:41:42 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst >> wrote: >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: >>> To: >>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:52 PM >>> Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions >>> >>> >>>> In short, the idea is that spectators could try to correct basic >>>> errors >>>> in >>>> procedure (like fouling a board) or errors in score, IF the director >>>> requests it. >>>> >>>> Longer. A player had finished playing and was watching a board. She >>>> noticed that it was being agreed as making 4 when it actually made 3. >>>> She >>>> pointed this out, so they scored it correctly. Later, she asked if she >>>> did >>>> the right thing. >>> >>> If she told you she'd seen it you'd have to fix it. She just cut out >>> the >>> middleman. >> >> I doubt I could fix it. Are you being realistic? I would have just >> looked >> at her and told her there was nothing I could do. > > You'd better be sure to fix it :) Duties of a TD. I'm serious. John Suppose I stop entering scores and catch them on the way out the door. If I just ask what happened on Board 15, they understand that question. The will look at their cards and say it made 4. That doesn't help. I can piss them off by asking them to recreate the play of the hand. Many players can't do that. Most likely, the pair that gave up a trick won't be able to recall the board and the pair that got the extra trick will say they can't recall the board. Now what? To tell the truth, this seems like a stewardess saying she noticed my daughter was about to throw up, but instead of handing her a bag, she just watched while my daughter threw up all over herself and now it's up to me to clean up the mess. Except I will not clean up the mess. I will look at the person who said the score was entered correctly and tell her she should have said something when the problem could be easily fixed. And for all that, her report to me isn't allowed by the laws any more than her telling the players. AFAIK. I agree that there are three or four players at the club who will remember the hand and be relatively happy to recreate it and check the result. But they were unlikely to be in this situation. From john at asimere.com Sat May 9 22:30:51 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 21:30:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions References: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com><92005E18E819410481B5935B5909CD4B@JOHN> Message-ID: <1666EE5EFF5649D1A26652166091D12B@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions > On Sat, 09 May 2009 12:00:02 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst > wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 5:52 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions >> >> >>> On Thu, 07 May 2009 13:41:42 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:52 PM >>>> Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions >>>> >>>> >>>>> In short, the idea is that spectators could try to correct basic >>>>> errors >>>>> in >>>>> procedure (like fouling a board) or errors in score, IF the director >>>>> requests it. >>>>> >>>>> Longer. A player had finished playing and was watching a board. She >>>>> noticed that it was being agreed as making 4 when it actually made 3. >>>>> She >>>>> pointed this out, so they scored it correctly. Later, she asked if she >>>>> did >>>>> the right thing. >>>> >>>> If she told you she'd seen it you'd have to fix it. She just cut out >>>> the >>>> middleman. >>> >>> I doubt I could fix it. Are you being realistic? I would have just >>> looked >>> at her and told her there was nothing I could do. >> >> You'd better be sure to fix it :) Duties of a TD. I'm serious. John > > Suppose I stop entering scores and catch them on the way out the door. If > I just ask what happened on Board 15, they understand that question. The > will look at their cards and say it made 4. That doesn't help. That's fine. You accept it, but it's not unknown for the traveller and scorecard to mismatch. > > I can piss them off by asking them to recreate the play of the hand. Many > players can't do that. Most likely, the pair that gave up a trick won't be > able to recall the board and the pair that got the extra trick will say > they can't recall the board. > > Now what? To tell the truth, this seems like a stewardess saying she > noticed my daughter was about to throw up, but instead of handing her a > bag, she just watched while my daughter threw up all over herself and now > it's up to me to clean up the mess. > > Except I will not clean up the mess. I will look at the person who said > the score was entered correctly and tell her she should have said > something when the problem could be easily fixed. > > And for all that, her report to me isn't allowed by the laws any more than > her telling the players. AFAIK. > > I agree that there are three or four players at the club who will remember > the hand and be relatively happy to recreate it and check the result. But > they were unlikely to be in this situation. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 10 00:40:13 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 18:40:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions In-Reply-To: <1666EE5EFF5649D1A26652166091D12B@JOHN> References: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <92005E18E819410481B5935B5909CD4B@JOHN> <1666EE5EFF5649D1A26652166091D12B@JOHN> Message-ID: On Sat, 09 May 2009 16:30:51 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 5:25 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions > > >> On Sat, 09 May 2009 12:00:02 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst >> wrote: >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 5:52 AM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, 07 May 2009 13:41:42 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: >>>>> To: >>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:52 PM >>>>> Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In short, the idea is that spectators could try to correct basic >>>>>> errors >>>>>> in >>>>>> procedure (like fouling a board) or errors in score, IF the director >>>>>> requests it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Longer. A player had finished playing and was watching a board. She >>>>>> noticed that it was being agreed as making 4 when it actually made >>>>>> 3. >>>>>> She >>>>>> pointed this out, so they scored it correctly. Later, she asked if >>>>>> she >>>>>> did >>>>>> the right thing. >>>>> >>>>> If she told you she'd seen it you'd have to fix it. She just cut out >>>>> the >>>>> middleman. >>>> >>>> I doubt I could fix it. Are you being realistic? I would have just >>>> looked >>>> at her and told her there was nothing I could do. >>> >>> You'd better be sure to fix it :) Duties of a TD. I'm serious. John >> >> Suppose I stop entering scores and catch them on the way out the door. >> If >> I just ask what happened on Board 15, they understand that question. The >> will look at their cards and say it made 4. That doesn't help. > > That's fine. You accept it, but it's not unknown for the traveller and > scorecard to mismatch. The contract made three and everyone at the table was agreeing that it made 4. So the players would presumably record it wrong on their scorecard too. From john at asimere.com Sun May 10 03:31:31 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 02:31:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions References: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com><92005E18E819410481B5935B5909CD4B@JOHN><1666EE5EFF5649D1A26652166091D12B@JOHN> Message-ID: <627941AC198440929DDB75BD99FFC391@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions > On Sat, 09 May 2009 16:30:51 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst > wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 5:25 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions >> >> >>> On Sat, 09 May 2009 12:00:02 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Robert Frick" >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 5:52 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 07 May 2009 13:41:42 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: >>>>>> To: >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:52 PM >>>>>> Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> In short, the idea is that spectators could try to correct basic >>>>>>> errors >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> procedure (like fouling a board) or errors in score, IF the director >>>>>>> requests it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Longer. A player had finished playing and was watching a board. She >>>>>>> noticed that it was being agreed as making 4 when it actually made >>>>>>> 3. >>>>>>> She >>>>>>> pointed this out, so they scored it correctly. Later, she asked if >>>>>>> she >>>>>>> did >>>>>>> the right thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> If she told you she'd seen it you'd have to fix it. She just cut out >>>>>> the >>>>>> middleman. >>>>> >>>>> I doubt I could fix it. Are you being realistic? I would have just >>>>> looked >>>>> at her and told her there was nothing I could do. >>>> >>>> You'd better be sure to fix it :) Duties of a TD. I'm serious. John >>> >>> Suppose I stop entering scores and catch them on the way out the door. >>> If >>> I just ask what happened on Board 15, they understand that question. The >>> will look at their cards and say it made 4. That doesn't help. >> >> That's fine. You accept it, but it's not unknown for the traveller and >> scorecard to mismatch. > > The contract made three and everyone at the table was agreeing that it > made 4. So the players would presumably record it wrong on their scorecard > too. > ok, I give up. John > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 11 03:47:31 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:47:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower: [snip] >I was playing at another table and overheard the following. (It >wasn't my night to direct, and the actual playing director - my >partner - did absolutely nothing.) > >At the next table, two novices who think they know everything >are playing against a little old lady and a complete beginner. >Knowitall says to the beginner, "that's insufficient." (Nobody >calls for a director. I roll my eyes.) Beginner puts her bid >away and pulls out a pass card. Knowitall says to the beginner, >"no, you can't do that, you have to make it sufficient." >Beginner looks tearful and confused, but knowitall#2 nods, >little old lady says nothing, and nobody calls for a director. >Beginner makes her bid sufficient, and goes for -200, a cold >bottom. > >I spoke to the knowitalls privately later, and told them they >needed to call the director. Their reply (as I suspected it >would be) was "why? You're just going to tell her she needs to >make it sufficient, aren't you?" > >Soooo.... aside from the obvious need for better player >education... [snip] Robert Frick: [snip] >>So, if I am twisting the laws around into the shape I want, >>players are responsible for calling me if they overhear an >>incorrect ruling at another table. Richard Hills: Actually, in the case related by Gordon, the Know-it-alls' ruling was doubly incorrect. Whether or not the two Know-it- alls correctly remembered Law 27, they unquestionably failed to correctly remember Law 81C (first sentence): "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage." Unfortunately Gordon was in a sense The Unlucky Expert, since Gordon knew that -- with his partner being the designated Director for the evening -- Gordon's hands were tied by the same Law 81C. However, if I had been Gordon, I would have "twisted the laws around into the shape I wanted" by the following process: Richard as Gordon: "Director!" Richard's partner as TD: "Say what? Richard as Gordon: "My enjoyment of the game has been interfered with, Law 74A2." Richard's partner as TD: "Say what?" Richard as Gordon: "My enjoyment of the game is always interfered with when I overhear two Know-it-alls bamboozling a beginner." Richard's partner as TD: "Say what?" Richard as Gordon: "Especially when those two Know-it-alls are infracting Law 81C to do so." Richard's partner as TD: "Say what." Richard as Gordon: "Oops. You have know learnt 'in any manner' about the irregularity at the next table. According to Grattan Endicott, the Coordinator of the Laws Drafting Committee, Law 81C3: 'is plainly stated; the words "in any manner" allow of no exceptions.'" Richard's partner as TD: "Say what?" Richard as Gordon: "You must immediately go to the next table, your Director's Duty under Law 82A, since to do otherwise would now be a Director's Error under Law 82C. Richard's partner as TD: "I may win on the roundabout Then I'll lose on the swings In or out, there is never a doubt Just who's pulling the strings I'm all tied up in you But where's it leading me to?" [Sandie Shaw, second verse of "Puppet on a String", winning song in the Eurovision Song Contest of 1967. A copy of my puppet-on- a-string Symmetric Relay system will be emailed on request.] Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 11 04:10:15 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:10:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9cfa7$1a8c7330$4fa55990$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran asserted: [snip] >In situations like this with beginners involved I think the Director >should act immediately to show the beginner that he cares for and >protects them. Richard Hills quibbles: Do not non-beginners also deserve equal access to justice under the Law? (Although, as David Grabiner has noted, the quantum of solace may vary when deciding Procedural Penalties, so that the punishment fits the crime and/or fits the expertise of the criminal.) Sven Pran asserted >And I do not consider such action by the Director to be in conflict >with the general principle that he should only approach a table when >being summoned to it. Richard Hills quibbles: Where is that so-called General Principle written in the Lawbook? Is not the contrary Private Equity written in Law 81C3? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon May 11 04:19:48 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 03:19:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A078B44.7090300@talktalk.net> [Richard Hills] Richard as Gordon: "Director!" Richard's partner as TD: "Say what? Richard as Gordon: "My enjoyment of the game has been interfered with, Law 74A2." Richard's partner as TD: "Say what?" Richard as Gordon: "My enjoyment of the game is always interfered with when I overhear two Know-it-alls bamboozling a beginner." Richard's partner as TD: "Say what?" Richard as Gordon: "Especially when those two Know-it-alls are infracting Law 81C to do so." Richard's partner as TD: "Say what." Richard as Gordon: "Oops. You have know learnt 'in any manner' about the irregularity at the next table. According to Grattan Endicott, the Coordinator of the Laws Drafting Committee, Law 81C3: 'is plainly stated; the words "in any manner" allow of no exceptions.'" Richard's partner as TD: "Say what?" Richard as Gordon: "You must immediately go to the next table, your Director's Duty under Law 82A, since to do otherwise would now be a Director's Error under Law 82C. Richard's partner as TD: "I may win on the roundabout Then I'll lose on the swings In or out, there is never a doubt Just who's pulling the strings I'm all tied up in you But where's it leading me to?" [Nigel] It is great to find BLMLers like Richard and Robert, at last advocating that kibitzers report infractions to the director (without saying anything to the players concerned). Unfortunately, I believe that such fairness is against the letter and spririt of the current laws. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 11 06:44:42 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:44:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A078B44.7090300@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Richard as Gordon: "Director!" >>Richard's partner as TD: "Say what? >>Richard as Gordon: "My enjoyment of the game has been >> interfered with, Law 74A2." >>Richard's partner as TD: "Say what?" >>Richard as Gordon: "My enjoyment of the game is always >> interfered with when I overhear two >> Know-it-alls bamboozling a beginner." >>Richard's partner as TD: "Say what?" >>Richard as Gordon: "Especially when those two Know-it-alls >> are infracting Law 81C to do so." >>Richard's partner as TD: "Say what?" >>Richard as Gordon: "Oops. You have know learnt 'in any >> manner' about the irregularity at the >> next table. According to Grattan >> Endicott, the Coordinator of the Laws >> Drafting Committee, Law 81C3: >> 'is plainly stated; the words "in any >> manner" allow of no exceptions.'" >>Richard's partner as TD: "Say what?" >>Richard as Gordon: "You must immediately go to the next >> table, your Director's Duty under Law >> 82A, since to do otherwise would now be >> a Director's Error under Law 82C." >>Richard's partner as TD: "I may win on the roundabout >> Then I'll lose on the swings >> In or out, there is never a doubt >> Just who's pulling the strings >> I'm all tied up in you >> But where's it leading me to?" Nigel Guthrie: >It is great to find BLMLers like Richard and Robert, at last >advocating that kibitzers report infractions to the director >(without saying anything to the players concerned). Cary Grant (1904-1986) almost said: "I imprve on misqutation." Nigel Guthrie: >Unfortunately, I believe that such fairness is against the letter >and spirit of the current laws. Cary Grant (1904-1986) actually said: "Divorce is a game played by lawyers." Definitions: "Contestant - in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates." Law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." Richard Hills: Note that Law 74A2 Does Not say "another player At The Same Table". Law 76D - Spectators - Status: "Any person in the playing area*, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently." Note that Law 76D Does say a spectator is "Other Than A Player". Ergo, Nigel Guthrie has misrepresented me on these three issues: (1) I am not great. (2) I advocate that a spectator must never voluntarily report an infraction of any Law to the TD During The Session. Law 76C1. (3) I advocate that another player in the session (who is necessarily never a spectator) may voluntarily report an infraction of Law 74A2 to the TD During The Session. (4) I cannot count to three. See my misanalysis of a hypothetical deal in the "Groundhog Day" thread. (5) "Fairness is against the letter and spirit of the current laws" -- begs the question, petitio principii. The fairness of a game is defined by its rules. For example, in the new and popular multi-player strategy boardgame, "Small World", (for which blmler Alain Gottcheiner provided significant advice to its designer), its two key principles are: (a) Laughter, and (b) Slaughter, with the purpose of the game being the efficient annihilation of opponents' ridiculous fantasy empires by your ridiculous fantasy empire. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 11 08:19:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:19:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <38B2E75B-177C-4EA2-A65B-06FD478030B3@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: >>But since the ACBL has flatly disallowed any understandings >>whatsoever (including implicit ones) with regard to actions >>over irregularities, it is illegal to have some understanding >>from which you do not vary. [snip] >>I know whereof I speak, because I have been there: in front >>of a committee for the infraction of having employed a >>partnership agreement with respect to actions over an >>opponent's irregularity. I argued (definitively >>demonstrated, IMOHO) that I was in a situation in which there >>was no way I could take any action whatsoever without >>committing an irregularity. After deliberating, the >>committee imposed no penalty but did issue a warning; they >>told me I should "never do it again". Asked precisely what >>it was that they were instructing me never to do again, they >>were unable to answer. This was decades ago, and I've still >>never figured it out. (Gruesome details of this incident >>have been posted to BLML in the past, and are available on >>request.) Richard Hills quibbles: Yes, Eric has dined out for decades on his true story of a logically impossible requirement mandated upon him and his regular partner by a logically obtuse ACBL Appeals Committee. What spoils Eric's story is that the ACBL Laws Commission no longer requires logical impossibilities from ACBL players who elect a Law 27A option and who have foolishly had prior discussion about Law 27A options with their regular partners. >DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT > >MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION >MARRIOTT HOTEL, DETROIT, MI >MARCH 8, 2008 > >MEMBERS PRESENT: >Chip Martel, Chairperson Dan Morse >Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair Matt Smith >Alan Falk John Solodar Robb Gordon Eric Rodwell >Georgia Heth > >ALSO PRESENT: >Rick Beye Joan Gerard >Gary Blaiss Olin Hubert [snip] >It was noted that the ACBL Board of Directors accepted the >recommendations of the Commission regarding "elections" by a >Zonal Authority and the implementation date of September 8, >2008 was approved. [snip] Richard Hills: The relevant election was: "10. 40B3: ACBL should select this option to disallow prior agreement to vary partnership understandings during the auction following a question, response or irregularity." So if Eric Landau and his regular partner have an agreement to play a negative double over an opponent's sufficient 3H, it is not automatically illegal to double an opponent's insufficient 2H. Rather, it is illegal to define a variation from negative double to penalty double whenever an ACBL insufficient bid is accepted. Thus if Eric wants to penalise an insufficient bid when playing in a negatively doubling partnership, then in the ACBL a Pass by Eric must retain the unvarying partnership meaning of: "possibly a Trap Pass". What's the problem? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 11 09:28:49 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:28:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 22nd July 2004 posting Tom Lehrer, "Be Prepared!" (final verse): Be prepared! And be careful not to do Your good deeds when there's no one watching you. If you're looking for adventure of a new and different kind, And you come across a Girl Scout who is similarly inclined, Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. Be prepared! Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3D 3S 5D ? You, South, hold: KQ3 KJT8742 85 A What call do you prepare? What other calls do you consider preparing? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Mon May 11 10:41:37 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:41:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000001c9cfa7$1a8c7330$4fa55990$@no> Message-ID: <000801c9d214$4c88c360$e59a4a20$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran asserted: > > [snip] > > >In situations like this with beginners involved I think the Director > >should act immediately to show the beginner that he cares for and > >protects them. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Do not non-beginners also deserve equal access to justice under the > Law? (Although, as David Grabiner has noted, the quantum of solace > may vary when deciding Procedural Penalties, so that the punishment > fits the crime and/or fits the expertise of the criminal.) Sure they do, but more experienced layers are usually also more able to protect themselves and not so vulnerable to opponents' bad manners. > Sven Pran asserted > > >And I do not consider such action by the Director to be in conflict > >with the general principle that he should only approach a table when > >being summoned to it. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Where is that so-called General Principle written in the Lawbook? > Is not the contrary Private Equity written in Law 81C3? The Director must (IMO) use judgment. IF commotion at a table obviously demonstrates to the world a grave violation of (for instance) Law 74 at that table I think the Director should approach that table on his own initiative. But I don't think he should approach a table just on suspicion of a possible irregularity without being summoned unless he knows that inexperienced, vulnerable players are involved. I have the feeling that a discussion on this principle has previously been exhausted on blml? Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 11 10:50:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:50:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A078B44.7090300@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <002401c9d215$a6e08d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard as Gordon: "You must immediately go to the next > table, your Director's Duty under Law > 82A, since to do otherwise would now be > a Director's Error under Law 82C. < +=+ Why 'immediately'? Is it not sufficient if he deals with the question somewhat later - as for example, when it is too late to change a call [consider Laws 21B1(a), 21B3, 81C3, 82A and 82C]? ~ Grattan as Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 11 12:49:09 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:49:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions References: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com><92005E18E819410481B5935B5909CD4B@JOHN><1666EE5EFF5649D1A26652166091D12B@JOHN> <627941AC198440929DDB75BD99FFC391@JOHN> Message-ID: <00ee01c9d226$1f625ce0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 2:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions > >> >> The contract made three and everyone at the table >> was agreeing that it made 4. So the players would >> presumably record it wrong on their scorecard too. >> > ok, I give up. John >> +=+ But only, I imagine, if it is no longer possible to play through the board with a member of each side present? Or could you perhaps make a provisional ruling subject to appeal, and examine the question with players of both sides later? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 11 12:54:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:54:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Prosperity, the pluses and minuses Message-ID: <00f801c9d226$e6ceea00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Hi all Did up the post in word. Wanted to post a bbo screenshot (edited to remove names). Be interested to see peoples comments. K. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Blm 4D hand.doc Type: application/msword Size: 54272 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090511/55f82cff/attachment-0001.doc From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 11 15:12:23 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:12:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000601c9d23a$2d4cbdf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 22nd July 2004 posting > > Tom Lehrer, "Be Prepared!" (final verse): > > Be prepared! And be careful not to do > Your good deeds when there's no one watching you. > If you're looking for adventure of a new and different kind, > And you come across a Girl Scout who is similarly inclined, > Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. > Be prepared! > +=+ It seems to scan better if the fourth line reads 'And you come across a Girl Scout who is also thus inclined' - but was the lyric set to a South American beat? ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 11 15:28:51 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:28:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3BD2261A-2CFA-4688-A541-B7838AB28B6E@starpower.net> On May 11, 2009, at 2:19 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau asserted: > >>> But since the ACBL has flatly disallowed any understandings >>> whatsoever (including implicit ones) with regard to actions >>> over irregularities, it is illegal to have some understanding >>> from which you do not vary. > > [snip] > >>> I know whereof I speak, because I have been there: in front >>> of a committee for the infraction of having employed a >>> partnership agreement with respect to actions over an >>> opponent's irregularity. I argued (definitively >>> demonstrated, IMOHO) that I was in a situation in which there >>> was no way I could take any action whatsoever without >>> committing an irregularity. After deliberating, the >>> committee imposed no penalty but did issue a warning; they >>> told me I should "never do it again". Asked precisely what >>> it was that they were instructing me never to do again, they >>> were unable to answer. This was decades ago, and I've still >>> never figured it out. (Gruesome details of this incident >>> have been posted to BLML in the past, and are available on >>> request.) > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Yes, Eric has dined out for decades on his true story of a > logically impossible requirement mandated upon him and his > regular partner by a logically obtuse ACBL Appeals Committee. > > What spoils Eric's story is that the ACBL Laws Commission no > longer requires logical impossibilities from ACBL players who > elect a Law 27A option and who have foolishly had prior > discussion about Law 27A options with their regular partners. > >> DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT >> >> MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION >> MARRIOTT HOTEL, DETROIT, MI >> MARCH 8, 2008 >> >> MEMBERS PRESENT: >> Chip Martel, Chairperson Dan Morse >> Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair Matt Smith >> Alan Falk John Solodar Robb Gordon Eric Rodwell >> Georgia Heth >> >> ALSO PRESENT: >> Rick Beye Joan Gerard >> Gary Blaiss Olin Hubert > > [snip] > >> It was noted that the ACBL Board of Directors accepted the >> recommendations of the Commission regarding "elections" by a >> Zonal Authority and the implementation date of September 8, >> 2008 was approved. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > The relevant election was: > > "10. 40B3: ACBL should select this option to disallow prior > agreement to vary partnership understandings during the > auction following a question, response or irregularity." > > So if Eric Landau and his regular partner have an agreement > to play a negative double over an opponent's sufficient 3H, > it is not automatically illegal to double an opponent's > insufficient 2H. Rather, it is illegal to define a variation > from negative double to penalty double whenever an ACBL > insufficient bid is accepted. Thus if Eric wants to penalise > an insufficient bid when playing in a negatively doubling > partnership, then in the ACBL a Pass by Eric must retain the > unvarying partnership meaning of: "possibly a Trap Pass". > > What's the problem? There are several, but let's start here: RHO opens 1C, I bid 5D, LHO bids 4S. Partner calls the TD, is read his options, accepts 4S, and doubles. I have no agreement perforce about the meaning of 1C-5D-4S-X, so I must assume (as has partner) that this is not a "variation" of my methods. Now I know what 1C-P-4S-X would mean, or what 1C-1D-4S-X would mean, or 1C-2D-4S-X, or 1C-3D-4S-X, or 1C-4D-4S-X (and I could go on), but they're all different; which is the one that I'm not being allowed to "vary the meaning" of? What the ACBL fails to recognize is that an explicit lack of agreement cannot be treated as the equivalent of any other "agreement". To "agree" to have "no agreement" is to agree that in the relevant situations, the partnership will derive the meaning of a particular call from general principles, situational awareness, and established "meta-rules". But the ACBL considers this "no agreement" to be "varying one's agreements" (albeit from what will generally be not at all clear). They are saying that it is illegal to apply your common sense or your general bridge knowledge to this particular situation. It is easy to see how, given the above, partner's double of 4S may put the partnership in a position where there is no way to proceed without committing an infraction (or "revealing" a prior infraction, as in the aforementioned true story), so the regulation as interpreted makes it effectively illegal for partner to accept the 4S IB and double it. IMHO, a regulation which prohibits one from making a perfectly legal call under any circumstances is beyond the authority of the RA. I'm sure the ACBL agrees, and simply does not understand that that's what they are doing. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From james at kineticmind.com Mon May 11 15:35:04 2009 From: james at kineticmind.com (James Heneghan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:35:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A082988.7040901@kineticmind.com> I'd like to introduce some kind of BLML interweb fines for frivolous hands. Karel, 1) My impression is that you only focus on the times you are stitched and never when opponents stitch themselves. 2) The resources consumed in tracing online fraud are significant. And there are many many cranks, loons, paranoids and conspiracy theorists who play card games. James. Karel wrote: > Hi all > > Did up the post in word. Wanted to post a bbo screenshot (edited to > remove names). Be interested to see peoples comments. > > K. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 11 15:42:07 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:42:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <3BD2261A-2CFA-4688-A541-B7838AB28B6E@starpower.net> References: <3BD2261A-2CFA-4688-A541-B7838AB28B6E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A082B2F.4090101@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > There are several, but let's start here: RHO opens 1C, I bid 5D, LHO > bids 4S. Partner calls the TD, is read his options, accepts 4S, and > doubles. > > I have no agreement perforce about the meaning of 1C-5D-4S-X, so I > must assume (as has partner) that this is not a "variation" of my > methods. Now I know what 1C-P-4S-X would mean, or what 1C-1D-4S-X > would mean, or 1C-2D-4S-X, or 1C-3D-4S-X, or 1C-4D-4S-X (and I could > go on), but they're all different; which is the one that I'm not > being allowed to "vary the meaning" of? > AG : and don't forget 1C-5D-5S-X. IMHO this would be the 'basic' situation. > What the ACBL fails to recognize is that an explicit lack of > agreement cannot be treated as the equivalent of any other > "agreement". To "agree" to have "no agreement" is to agree that in > the relevant situations, the partnership will derive the meaning of a > particular call from general principles, situational awareness, and > established "meta-rules". But the ACBL considers this "no agreement" > to be "varying one's agreements" (albeit from what will generally be > not at all clear). a regulation which prohibits one from making > a perfectly legal call under any circumstances is beyond the > authority of the RA. I'm sure the ACBL agrees, and simply does not > understand that that's what they are doing. > AG : in which case, every pair varies its agreements. Can you be put in a situation where you'll be treated as guilty whatever you do ? The ACBL says yes. In lieu of 'what am I supposed not to do ?', perhaps we should ask them : 'in situation A I play thus and in B I play this etc. Now the bidding goes : ... What am I allowed to do ?' If they can't answer, perhaps (perhaps) we may tell them we're not guilty of not being able to answer either, BTA I'm an idealist. Best regards Alain From karel at esatclear.ie Mon May 11 15:58:31 2009 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:58:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: <4A082988.7040901@kineticmind.com> References: <4A082988.7040901@kineticmind.com> Message-ID: Well James, where is the line ? Just how bad or blatant does it have to be before one is prepared to act ? As it stands - you cant prove anything because as you say the person could be a loon. Any action can be justified under those circumstances. K. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 2:35 PM, James Heneghan wrote: > I'd like to introduce some kind of BLML interweb fines for frivolous hands. > > Karel, > 1) My impression is that you only focus on the times you are stitched > and never when opponents stitch themselves. > 2) The resources consumed in tracing online fraud are significant. ?And > there are many many cranks, loons, paranoids and conspiracy theorists > who play card games. > > James. > > > Karel wrote: >> Hi all >> >> Did up the post in word. ?Wanted to post a bbo screenshot (edited to >> remove names). ?Be interested to see peoples comments. >> >> K. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 11 16:13:57 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:13:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 11, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Karel wrote: > Did up the post in word. Wanted to post a bbo screenshot (edited to > remove names). Be interested to see peoples comments. > > K. Not owning Word, I attempted to open Karel's document my (Mac) text editor. I got only the text; the screenshot (hand and/or bidding diagrams presumably) didn't make it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Mon May 11 16:43:00 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:43:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions References: <43603.24.46.179.117.1241715123.squirrel@email.powweb.com><92005E18E819410481B5935B5909CD4B@JOHN><1666EE5EFF5649D1A26652166091D12B@JOHN><627941AC198440929DDB75BD99FFC391@JOHN> <00ee01c9d226$1f625ce0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <6AA5F6975EE349659ED03B83856DD095@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 2:31 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions > > >> >>> >>> The contract made three and everyone at the table >>> was agreeing that it made 4. So the players would >>> presumably record it wrong on their scorecard too. >>> >> ok, I give up. John >>> > +=+ But only, I imagine, if it is no longer possible to play > through the board with a member of each side present? > Or could you perhaps make a provisional ruling > subject to appeal, and examine the question with players > of both sides later? Indeed, we are in time for th adjustment, but I can only adjust with both sides present and in agreement. - and I'd still be happy if a spectator drew it to my attention. I, for one, wouldn't want to be credited a trick I hadn't won and I, for one, would rather not play with someone who would hide behind the Law in an attempt to gain such a trick. But that's just me. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon May 11 16:50:25 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:50:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable References: Message-ID: On BCL! if I were nailing someone's head to the floor (which i do now and then) it would be a hand where I'd ask for explanation. [We take a set of c. 300 hands, where there are a sizeable number of actions not consistent with the PPI (read lehman) and ask them to explain them. If they succeed well and good, if they don't we terminate their membership. Nice and easy and no suggestion of "gravest possible offnce"] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "BLM" Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 1:18 PM Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable > Hi all > > Did up the post in word. Wanted to post a bbo screenshot (edited to > remove names). Be interested to see peoples comments. > > K. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Mon May 11 16:53:25 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:53:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000601c9d23a$2d4cbdf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <861E57B535EB4A84B8B21E5AC363C733@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> 22nd July 2004 posting >> >> Tom Lehrer, "Be Prepared!" (final verse): >> >> Be prepared! And be careful not to do >> Your good deeds when there's no one watching you. >> If you're looking for adventure of a new and different kind, >> And you come across a Girl Scout who is similarly inclined, >> Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. >> Be prepared! SIM-lar-LEE Grattan. I say it that way - is it different across the great divide? (the line from Bristol to The Wash) >> > +=+ It seems to scan better if the fourth line reads > 'And you come across a Girl Scout who is also thus inclined' > - but was the lyric set to a South American beat? > ~ G ~ +=+ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon May 11 16:54:24 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:54:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c9d23a$2d4cbdf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000601c9d23a$2d4cbdf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0905110754m15a43d06o25dba7d71c59862b@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > ?Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > 22nd July 2004 posting > > > > Tom Lehrer, "Be Prepared!" (final verse): > > > > Be prepared! And be careful not to do > > Your good deeds when there's no one watching you. > > If you're looking for adventure of a new and different kind, > > And you come across a Girl Scout who is similarly inclined, > > Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. > > Be prepared! > > > +=+ It seems to scan better if the fourth line reads > ? 'And you come across a Girl Scout who is also thus inclined' > ? ? ? - but was the lyric set to a South American beat? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ G ~ ?+=+ > When sung, instead of similarly, it is sim-lar-ly. The second syllable is removed. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon May 11 16:59:51 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:59:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c9d249$2346fc30$69d4f490$@com> [Karel] Declarer now ran the C8 at trick 4. I'm sorry I defy anyone to explain this action. [DALB] Indeed. North ought to be drummed off BBO forever. Imagine not splitting his club honours, thus allowing declarer to make a hopeless contract. Clearly there is collusion between North and West. David Burn London, England From karel at esatclear.ie Mon May 11 17:10:38 2009 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:10:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: <000001c9d249$2346fc30$69d4f490$@com> References: <000001c9d249$2346fc30$69d4f490$@com> Message-ID: Absolutely correct David .... which is why running the 8 is even more absurd. IF north had QJxx he would split. he didnt ergo he doesnt have both. K. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:59 PM, David Burn wrote: > [Karel] > > Declarer now ran the C8 at trick 4. ?I'm sorry I defy anyone to explain this > action. > > [DALB] > > Indeed. North ought to be drummed off BBO forever. Imagine not splitting his > club honours, thus allowing declarer to make a hopeless contract. Clearly > there is collusion between North and West. > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From james at kineticmind.com Mon May 11 17:32:19 2009 From: james at kineticmind.com (James Heneghan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:32:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: References: <4A082988.7040901@kineticmind.com> Message-ID: <4A084503.9000106@kineticmind.com> I expect that the line is breached when 1) the costs associated with the research are significantly less than the prize on offer. or 2) the (expected cost of research) * (the number of reported incidents) are not a drain on the resources of the commercial entity. I don't play tournaments for prizes on line, but I do play robot rubber. I could not care less about cheating at imps or mp in the main BBO bridge club. James. Karel wrote: > Well James, where is the line ? Just how bad or blatant does it have > to be before one is prepared to act ? As it stands - you cant prove > anything because as you say the person could be a loon. Any action > can be justified under those circumstances. > > K. > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 2:35 PM, James Heneghan wrote: > >> I'd like to introduce some kind of BLML interweb fines for frivolous hands. >> >> Karel, >> 1) My impression is that you only focus on the times you are stitched >> and never when opponents stitch themselves. >> 2) The resources consumed in tracing online fraud are significant. And >> there are many many cranks, loons, paranoids and conspiracy theorists >> who play card games. >> >> James. >> >> >> Karel wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Did up the post in word. Wanted to post a bbo screenshot (edited to >>> remove names). Be interested to see peoples comments. >>> >>> K. >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From james at kineticmind.com Mon May 11 17:44:55 2009 From: james at kineticmind.com (James Heneghan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:44:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: <4A084503.9000106@kineticmind.com> References: <4A082988.7040901@kineticmind.com> <4A084503.9000106@kineticmind.com> Message-ID: <4A0847F7.7070005@kineticmind.com> Miraculously, I have found a similar hand in BBO records and looked at other hands that have been played by the E/W pair. If this is the pair you have in mind, I think BBO should do something. James Heneghan wrote: > I expect that the line is breached when > 1) the costs associated with the research are significantly less than > the prize on offer. > or > 2) the (expected cost of research) * (the number of reported incidents) > are not a drain on the resources of the commercial entity. > > I don't play tournaments for prizes on line, but I do play robot rubber. > I could not care less about cheating at imps or mp in the main BBO > bridge club. > > James. > > Karel wrote: > >> Well James, where is the line ? Just how bad or blatant does it have >> to be before one is prepared to act ? As it stands - you cant prove >> anything because as you say the person could be a loon. Any action >> can be justified under those circumstances. >> >> K. >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 2:35 PM, James Heneghan wrote: >> >> >>> I'd like to introduce some kind of BLML interweb fines for frivolous hands. >>> >>> Karel, >>> 1) My impression is that you only focus on the times you are stitched >>> and never when opponents stitch themselves. >>> 2) The resources consumed in tracing online fraud are significant. And >>> there are many many cranks, loons, paranoids and conspiracy theorists >>> who play card games. >>> >>> James. >>> >>> >>> Karel wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Did up the post in word. Wanted to post a bbo screenshot (edited to >>>> remove names). Be interested to see peoples comments. >>>> >>>> K. >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> > From tedying at yahoo.com Mon May 11 17:53:37 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 08:53:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <967972.31539.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I see...so, now it is a requirement that you be a decent player and make no mistakes to play on-line bridge. That assumption and the comment ===== Declarer now ran the C8 at trick 4. I?m sorry I defy anyone to explain this action. ===== smacks of elitism to me. I run a 50-60 table game every week and even in the A/X flight (we have three flights so the A/X game is an excellent game) I still see plays like this routinely. First, West made an assumption that South showing the majors would be short and may not have an honor in clubs. North lost his mind and forgot to split...I've seen this type of mistake even by very good players who just had a temporary mind loss. It happens. And both can be explained as either a bad play or a mistake. I personally think this is the type of action that a recorder form is for. I can certainly see reason to record West's action and should West have a pattern of such types of behavior, that it could be cause for concern, but as an isolated incident, I wouldn't have an issue with this. Additionally, I would have a problem with someone suggesting unethical practices without any other evidence. -Ted. ----- Original Message ---- From: Karel To: BLM Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 8:18:25 AM Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable Hi all Did up the post in word. Wanted to post a bbo screenshot (edited to remove names). Be interested to see peoples comments. K. From tedying at yahoo.com Mon May 11 18:06:43 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable Message-ID: <530453.68221.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Attached is a .jpg of the hand layout and auction that was sent. Hopefully the .jpg is a readable version. Due to size restrictions, I cannot put the text in the same message as the .JPG. If you need the text, let me know and I can cut and paste that into an e-mail. -Ted. ----- Original Message ---- From: Eric Landau Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:13:57 AM Not owning Word, I attempted to open Karel's document my (Mac) text editor. I got only the text; the screenshot (hand and/or bidding diagrams presumably) didn't make it. Eric Landau -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BLML-graphic-hand-3.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28665 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090511/1b2d335d/attachment-0001.jpg From craigstamps at comcast.net Mon May 11 19:43:51 2009 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:43:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable References: Message-ID: <005101c9d260$0c0f9150$1a2d2544@craigjkd4vrl7u> I couldn't read this either. I thought we agreed some time ago to post in plain text on this list. I don't care to receive email I can't read. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Questionable action explainable > On May 11, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Karel wrote: > >> Did up the post in word. Wanted to post a bbo screenshot (edited to >> remove names). Be interested to see peoples comments. >> >> K. > > Not owning Word, I attempted to open Karel's document my (Mac) text > editor. I got only the text; the screenshot (hand and/or bidding > diagrams presumably) didn't make it. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From craigstamps at comcast.net Mon May 11 19:53:26 2009 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:53:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000601c9d23a$2d4cbdf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <861E57B535EB4A84B8B21E5AC363C733@JOHN> Message-ID: <006f01c9d261$63326ec0$1a2d2544@craigjkd4vrl7u> Well, here in the states I was taught that SIM-i-LAR-ly had 4 beats...but Tommy no doubt used 3. Thus would be a bit much I think though "also so inclined" might do. Craig (Who apparently missed out on some of the fun of scouting in my youth :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 2:12 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ********************************** >> "When deciding how much to tell >> Penelope uses her indiscretion." >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 8:28 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> 22nd July 2004 posting >>> >>> Tom Lehrer, "Be Prepared!" (final verse): >>> >>> Be prepared! And be careful not to do >>> Your good deeds when there's no one watching you. >>> If you're looking for adventure of a new and different kind, >>> And you come across a Girl Scout who is similarly inclined, >>> Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. >>> Be prepared! > > SIM-lar-LEE Grattan. I say it that way - is it different across the great > divide? > (the line from Bristol to The Wash) > >>> >> +=+ It seems to scan better if the fourth line reads >> 'And you come across a Girl Scout who is also thus inclined' >> - but was the lyric set to a South American beat? >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 11 22:06:26 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:06:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 May 2009 00:44:42 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills: > > Law 76D - Spectators - Status: > > "Any person in the playing area*, other than a player or a > tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the > Director specifies differently." > > Note that Law 76D Does say a spectator is "Other Than A Player". For most of the laws, "players" refers to only the four players at the table. For example, "Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position (L7B1) and "...any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period..." (L9A1). One possible exception is L6D1, which calls for a redeal "..if a plyer could have seen the face of a card belonging to another player.." I am not sure of the intended meaning here, but it would be nice if it applied to all contestants. However, that's not real important, because the usual issue is just other people at the table seeing the card. In L90A, where an ambiguity would matter, the term "contestants" is used. If you wanted to interpret "player" as meaning any player in the room, then you do not have to resort to L74A2 in order to call the director when an erroneous ruling is being given at a nearby table. You can instead just use L9B1(b): "Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity." So, do the rules governing "spectators" apply to players in the room who are not playing the hand in question? "Any person in the playing area, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectatory unless the Director specifies differently." If you say that the contestants at the table are not spectators, then there is no law covering their rights and responsibilities. Why would the lawbook intentionally create this gap? So I am thinking that the players who are not playing a board would be governed by the laws governing spectators (with of course additional restrictions in what they are allowed to observe). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 12 00:39:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:39:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002401c9d215$a6e08d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: >>Richard as Gordon: "You must immediately go to the next >> table, your Director's Duty under Law >> 82A, since to do otherwise would now be >> a Director's Error under Law 82C." >+=+ Why 'immediately'? Is it not sufficient if he deals with the >question somewhat later - as for example, when it is too late to >change a call [consider Laws 21B1(a), 21B3, 81C3, 82A and 82C]? > ~ Grattan as Grattan ~ +=+ Richard as Richard: In my opinion, later is not sufficient. One of the Laws being infracted at the next table is Law 9B1(a): "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." Roget's Thesaurus indicates in any manner that "at once" is a synonym for "immediately". Mark Twain (1835-1910): "Never put off to tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow." Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 12 00:54:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:54:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c9d214$4c88c360$e59a4a20$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran asserted: [snip] >But I don't think he should approach a table just on suspicion >of a possible irregularity without being summoned unless he >knows that inexperienced, vulnerable players are involved. Law 81C1 quibbles: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game." Sven Pran remembered: >I have the feeling that a discussion on this principle has >previously been exhausted on blml? Richard Hills notes: Some years ago the gafiated blmler Vitold created a set of guidelines for Directors. In those guidelines, Vitold correctly recommended that Law 81C1 would be better enforced if a Director adopted the business principle of Management By Walking Around (rather than sitting to one side engrossed in the latest Lois McMaster Bujold novel). Miles Vorkosigan advised: "No, no, never send interim reports. Only final ones. Interim reports tend to elicit orders. Which you must either then obey, or spend valuable time and energy evading, which you could be using to solve the problem." Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 12 01:58:20 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 09:58:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel, 11th May 2009: >>...I have posted several hands on Blml over the years of dubious >>actions taken which while not concrete proof are clearly "strange", >>strange enough to question their legitimacy. On each occasion the >>powers on Blml have baulked at ruling against the actions... Karel, 16th March 2008: >...a 3rd example (again local club) > >Again a very good player > >Bidding goes P P 3D ?? > >S AJxx >H KQx >D - >C AKJTxx > >Good hand - I think almost everyone without exception would double. >No rush to bid clubs, spade or even heart game possible, and a slam >in either of the 3 suits conceivable. > >The actual bid was 6C's !! Richard Hills, 17th March 2008: The call I would choose myself opposite a passed partner, since now the grand slam is unlikely. Karel, 16th March 2008: >Dummy comes down with > >S QTx >H xxxx >D Axx >C Qxx > >Spade K on side 12 tricks - for a joint bottom. > >Now I can see some rationale behind this bid. Passed opener, weak 3 >diamond bid 3rd seat, partner must have some values, probably >outside of diamonds. Didn't want to double in case pd left it in >with Dxxxx. The opps might sacrifice in 6D's. Depending on partner >maybe doesn't have the system to investigate scientifically - punted >what they felt would be maybe on a finesse. All valid reasons - >but none so outstanding/concrete/urgent to avoid the normal double Richard Hills, 17th March 2008: No, a double is lunacy on this hand with its huge playing strength. The diamond void means that there is an unacceptable risk of pard passing for an inadequate penalty. If: (a) I am a very good (albeit optimistic) player, and (b) I would leap to 6C at the table, then (c) perhaps the other good player's ethics are beyond reproach? Nigel Guthrie, 16th March 2008: [Snip of a Modest Proposal for a "guilty until proved innocent" Law] >From the tenor of Karel's posts, I feel that I echo her attitude. >If so, I hope that my support does not alienate orthodox BLMLers. Grattan Endicott, 16th March 2008: +=+ Bridge is a mansion with many rooms. My advice would be that any player with doubts such as Karel recites should discuss the approach to the question with a senior TD in the locality where the problem arises. Depending on the place the response may well be different. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 12 02:30:15 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:30:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Premature replacement - sort of [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick, great analysis: [snip] >If you wanted to interpret "player" as meaning any player in the >room, then you do not have to resort to L74A2 [snip] Richard Hills, grate analysis: A false proposition implies any proposition. I am not arguing in favour of another commanding officer of the blml army, General Proposition, that all Laws listing "player" always refer to any player in the room. Rather I am making a specific argument about the specific Law 74A2. I assert that if, as occasionally happens, players at an adjacent table engage in a full and frank discussion without deigning to use any parliamentary expressions, then my Law 74A2 "enjoyment of the game" has in fact been infracted (despite the irregularity initiating at a different table) and I am entitled to summon the Director (because the irregularity has now arrived at my own table, since I eschew earplugs). What's the problem? Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From taigabridge at hotmail.com Tue May 12 02:41:16 2009 From: taigabridge at hotmail.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:41:16 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Of course it doesn't scan if you try to take it straight syllable by syllable. It isn't sung in that rhythm! MOST of the song is in straight 8th notes, including If(8) you're (8) | look(8)-ing(8) for(8) ad(8)- | ven(8)ture(8) of(8) a(8) | new(8) and(8) diff(8)- 'rent (8) | kind (4) ... but the line in question has both 16th notes and a syncopation in it: and(8) you(8) | come(16)a(16)cross(4) - a(8) | girl(8) scout(8) who(8) is(8) | sim(16)i(16)lar(8) ly(8) in (8) | clined (4) Both my Lehrer recordings clearly pronounce all four syllables of "similarly". "Don't be nervous don't be flustered don't be scared" is straight 8ths again. GRB _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has a new way to see what's up with your friends. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 12 03:17:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:17:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower: >Of course it doesn't scan if you try to take it straight syllable >by syllable. It isn't sung in that rhythm! MOST of the song is in >straight 8th notes, including > >If(8) you're (8) | look(8)-ing(8) for(8) ad(8)- | ven(8)ture(8) >of(8) a(8) | new(8) and(8) diff(8)- 'rent (8) | kind (4) ... > >but the line in question has both 16th notes and a syncopation in >it: > >and(8) you(8) | come(16)a(16)cross(4) - a(8) | girl(8) scout(8) >who(8) is(8) | sim(16)i(16)lar(8) ly(8) in (8) | clined (4) > >Both my Lehrer recordings clearly pronounce all four syllables of >"similarly". "Don't be nervous don't be flustered don't be >scared" is straight 8ths again. > >GRB Richard Hills: Welcome back to blml, Gordon. Do you have any cats? A disadvantage of my habit of prefixing a Laws problem with a quote of some (perhaps strained) relevance is that if the quote is too interesting (as quotes from the great Harvard lecturer in mathematics, Tom Lehrer, often are), then blmlers spend their time debating the quote, rather than debating the Laws problem. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets 23rd July 2004 posting Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3D 3S 5D ? You, South, hold: KQ3 KJT8742 85 A What call do you prepare? What other calls do you consider preparing? * * * There have been a number of different responses -> Wayne Burrows: >6S > >I considered 5H, 5S, 5NT, 6H. Jim Hudson: >Lots of alternatives. 6S, 5H, and double are all >plausible, 5S and 6D worth considering. My choice >is 5NT--pick a slam. Brian Thorp: >Not sure about "preparing" calls. The call I >make is 6S. And the calls I considered and >rejected were 5S and 6C. And all of the responses were utterly wrong. Brian Thorp came closest to being right, when he was rightly suspicious of me asking, "What call do you prepare?", rather than me asking the standard question "What call do you make?" The correct answer is to prepare your call by a thoughtful break in tempo. After that judicious pause, you then bid 5S. Pard will then know that: (a) Your 5S is not a sacrifice against an opposing cold 5D, and (b) Your 5S is not a signoff in game, so (c) Your 5S is based on the values for slam, but (d) You are worried about losing two quick diamond tricks before your side can cash its 13 winners. Pard will then pass 5S without a diamond control, scoring +450, but bid slam with a diamond control, scoring +980 or +1010. At the table the judicious pause + 5S call was chosen. Pard held: AJ752 A A32 KT72 Since pard held the requisite diamond control, they followed orders and raised to 6S for +1010. The operation was a success, because when the opponents called the TD, the TD ruled, "6S was clearly the probable bid for South. Pass does not seem a logical alternative." But the patient died, because the AC adjusted the score back to 5S, +510. But the operation was a success, because the precedent established by the AC was questioned by the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee, which wrote: >>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many >>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest >>extra values than that the bid is a stretch. >>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid >>conclusion of general application when a player >>is under pressure at a high level. Accordingly, >>although the TD's conclusion that Pass was not a >>logical alternative does not seem right, it >>would not have been surprising if the score had >>been allowed to stand on the basis that the >>successful action was not suggested by the >>unauthorised information. [snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 May 12 04:38:14 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 21:38:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <200905111441.n4BEfoKo029188@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200905111441.n4BEfoKo029188@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4A08E116.4050700@nhcc.net> >> "10. 40B3: ACBL should select this option to disallow prior >> agreement to vary partnership understandings during the >> auction following a question, response or irregularity." > From: Eric Landau > ... let's start here: RHO opens 1C, I bid 5D, LHO > bids 4S. Partner calls the TD, is read his options, accepts 4S, and > doubles. > > I have no agreement perforce about the meaning of 1C-5D-4S-X, What do you mean "perforce?" What stops you from having an agreement? As you yourself have written, if a similar auction has occurred before, you _do_ have a tacit agreement or at least the rudiments of one. No problem with that as far as I can see. > Now I know what 1C-P-4S-X would mean, or what 1C-1D-4S-X > would mean, or 1C-2D-4S-X, or 1C-3D-4S-X, or 1C-4D-4S-X (and I could > go on), but they're all different Exactly. They have nothing to do with the auction you proposed. It's the same as 1C-1S-x versus 1C-2S-x. If you want to treat one as penalty and the other as negative, the ACBL doesn't object. > which is the one that I'm not > being allowed to "vary the meaning" of? Consider instead 1C-5D-4S...oops...5S-x ? I think the ACBL is saying you have to treat this as the same as 1C-5D-5S-x. Personally I don't see why the ACBL would wish to have any restrictions here, but the one they have seems easy enough to understand. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 12 04:00:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:00:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: James Heneghan: >I'd like to introduce some kind of BLML interweb fines for >frivolous hands. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets 22nd January 2005 posting Some blmlers genuflect before the Laws of Bridge with way too much reverence. An appropriate trampling of the Laws of Bridge was undertaken at the Novelty Pairs in the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. Each round of Neville Moses' Novelty Pairs had special rules which modified the normal rules of bridge. On board 15, the novelty modification to the Laws of Bridge was a rule that the *partner* of the player who won the last trick would be required to lead to the next trick. Dlr: South Richard Hills Vul: North-South AQ743 Q7 J T8653 West East T9 865 J843 KT95 T9862 AQ7543 76 --- Andrew Struik KJ2 A62 K AKQJ92 As North, I declared 4S, and East led a trump. As the Novelty Pairs was scored by matchpoints (not the imps of the previous week) it was vital to win 13 tricks, rather than merely 12. I drew trumps in three rounds, and then I played on clubs, carefully blocking the fifth round of clubs with the ten of clubs. This criss-crossed the lead to dummy, which allowed me to cash the sixth round of clubs to discard the jack of diamonds. Back in my hand now, I carefully cashed a fourth round of trumps *before* playing a Vienna Coup ace of hearts. The play of dummy's ace of hearts criss-crossed me back to my North hand, thus allowing me to lead the S7 squeeze card in this two-card ending: Richard Hills 7 Q --- --- West East --- irrelevant K A --- Andrew Struik --- 6 K --- East could not discard the HK, as that would give me a heart winner. So East discarded the DA. I now discarded dummy's H6, and the lead was now criss-crossed to dummy, which allowed dummy's "entryless" DK to score the thirteenth trick. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 May 12 07:17:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:17:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6AA5F6975EE349659ED03B83856DD095@JOHN> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst asserted: >Indeed, we are in time for the adjustment, but I can only adjust >with both sides present and in agreement. Richard Hills quibbles: Even an out-of-time score adjustment (perhaps suggested after the session by a former spectator) does not necessarily need both sides present and in agreement. See the new 2007 Law 79C2: "Regulations may provide for circumstances in which a scoring error may be corrected after expiry of the Correction Period if the Director and the Tournament Organizer are both satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record is wrong." Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 12 10:04:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 09:04:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002901c9d2d8$77526ff0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L76C1 - spectator actions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > John (MadDog) Probst asserted: > >>Indeed, we are in time for the adjustment, but I can only adjust >>with both sides present and in agreement. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Even an out-of-time score adjustment (perhaps suggested after the > session by a former spectator) does not necessarily need both > sides present and in agreement. See the new 2007 Law 79C2: > > "Regulations may provide for circumstances in which a scoring > error may be corrected after expiry of the Correction Period if > the Director and the Tournament Organizer are both satisfied > beyond reasonable doubt that the record is wrong." > +=+ John may well be in situations where he is both Director and Representative of the TO. This is a highly convenient duality. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 12 11:04:38 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:04:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <4A08E116.4050700@nhcc.net> References: <200905111441.n4BEfoKo029188@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A08E116.4050700@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4A093BA6.70300@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >>> "10. 40B3: ACBL should select this option to disallow prior >>> agreement to vary partnership understandings during the >>> auction following a question, response or irregularity." >>> > > > From: Eric Landau > >> ... let's start here: RHO opens 1C, I bid 5D, LHO >> bids 4S. Partner calls the TD, is read his options, accepts 4S, and >> doubles. >> >> I have no agreement perforce about the meaning of 1C-5D-4S-X, >> > > What do you mean "perforce?" What stops you from having an agreement? > As you yourself have written, if a similar auction has occurred before, > you _do_ have a tacit agreement or at least the rudiments of one. No > problem with that as far as I can see. > AG : The problem is that you do have a tacit agreement, can't avoid it, yet are disallowed to have one. Just tell me how you intend to extricate yourself from this. Of course, you can always go to court and plead unavoidable circumstances (I don't know the English term ; we say "erreur invincible", i.e. you can't avoid the trouble that was caused even by doing the bast and most legal as you can). But perhaps it's time that some wise person at the ACBL recognize the problem. Best regards Alain From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Tue May 12 11:32:43 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:32:43 +0300 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: References: <000001c9d249$2346fc30$69d4f490$@com> Message-ID: <4A09423B.5080104@jldata.fi> Karel wrote: > Absolutely correct David .... > > which is why running the 8 is even more absurd. IF north had QJxx he > would split. he didnt ergo he doesnt have both. > > I don't like to discuss without any other evidence this kind of thing. One deal hardly is enough. Then I can't find anything very abnormal in bidding. Only 4 dia bid suggest, that West is not wired, because normally 4 spades will not make, but now it will. Only suspicious thing is running club 8. But from bidding West knows, that North has only few high cards, some length in both majors, probably just 4-3, and he must have some distribution for 3 hearts bid, => so he "must" have short dia. If all this is true, there is one legitimate chance, club J or Q singleton in South, or sleepy North. Mistakes, cumbersome and sleepy bids and plays happens in every level. Last I saw lot of them, when I was playing in Finnish open team in Beijing last year.. I probably would not bid and play like this, but I could, and I definitely would not like read accusation of cheating and how even more absurd my play is. Juuso > K. > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:59 PM, David Burn wrote: > >> [Karel] >> >> Declarer now ran the C8 at trick 4. I'm sorry I defy anyone to explain this >> action. >> >> [DALB] >> >> Indeed. North ought to be drummed off BBO forever. Imagine not splitting his >> club honours, thus allowing declarer to make a hopeless contract. Clearly >> there is collusion between North and West. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 12 14:46:58 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:46:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: <530453.68221.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <530453.68221.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0294DC42-44F7-4A1C-A697-1173002FBF56@starpower.net> On May 11, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Ted Ying wrote: > Attached is a .jpg of the hand layout and auction that was sent. > Hopefully > > the .jpg is a readable version. Due to size restrictions, I cannot > put the > text in the same message as the .JPG. If you need the text, let me > know > and I can cut and paste that into an e-mail. Got it; came through just fine. Thanks. /eric Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 12 15:14:51 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 09:14:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <4A08E116.4050700@nhcc.net> References: <200905111441.n4BEfoKo029188@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A08E116.4050700@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <9E31C07A-A7F9-4F52-9BC4-425358BDEDF2@starpower.net> On May 11, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >>> "10. 40B3: ACBL should select this option to disallow prior >>> agreement to vary partnership understandings during the >>> auction following a question, response or irregularity." > >> From: Eric Landau >> ... let's start here: RHO opens 1C, I bid 5D, LHO >> bids 4S. Partner calls the TD, is read his options, accepts 4S, and >> doubles. >> >> I have no agreement perforce about the meaning of 1C-5D-4S-X, > > What do you mean "perforce?" What stops you from having an agreement? Per force of law. The regulation in question prohibits it. > As you yourself have written, if a similar auction has occurred > before, > you _do_ have a tacit agreement or at least the rudiments of one. No > problem with that as far as I can see. That is a key part of the problem: you do have a tacit agreement, and it may not be a legal one. >> Now I know what 1C-P-4S-X would mean, or what 1C-1D-4S-X >> would mean, or 1C-2D-4S-X, or 1C-3D-4S-X, or 1C-4D-4S-X (and I could >> go on), but they're all different > > Exactly. They have nothing to do with the auction you proposed. It's > the same as 1C-1S-x versus 1C-2S-x. If you want to treat one as > penalty > and the other as negative, the ACBL doesn't object. > >> which is the one that I'm not >> being allowed to "vary the meaning" of? > > Consider instead 1C-5D-4S...oops...5S-x ? I think the ACBL is saying > you have to treat this as the same as 1C-5D-5S-x. I could live with that, although I don't see its justification. After all, absent specific agreement, it is what general bridge logic and your meta-agreements would lead you to conclude most of the time anyhow. > Personally I don't see why the ACBL would wish to have any > restrictions > here, but the one they have seems easy enough to understand. The problem arises when pard doesn't accept the IB. Now the auction is 1C-5D-4S-X. And the ACBL is saying that you have to treat this as the same as... well, what, then? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From karel at esatclear.ie Tue May 12 16:35:36 2009 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:35:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: <0294DC42-44F7-4A1C-A697-1173002FBF56@starpower.net> References: <530453.68221.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0294DC42-44F7-4A1C-A697-1173002FBF56@starpower.net> Message-ID: The point I'm making is obvious. There are lots of hands where various degrees of "odd" things happen. In these cases you can't prove anything. The only evidence is the way in which the hand was processed frequently involving one or more hugely anti percentage actions. As numerous people have citied - bridge players do odd things. All I'm asking is where do you draw the line ? When does odd no longer justify the action ? Take the hand posted. I've already citied a possible reason for bidding 4D in my original post. If we were to give this hand to say 100 of E/W peers how many would bid 4D? IMO very few because the risk versus the gain is tiny. An odd action you say, fair enough. Now the play. At trick 4 declarer runs the C8 which against normal defence is a NO WIN play. I want to stress this. From a technical point of view running the 8 can NEVER win ever. Not only that but it plays for a precise layout of cards on which you CANNOT make the contract. The contract can be made with a massive amount of alternative distributions clubs 2/4 or 3/3, diamond 2/2 or even 3/1 or 4/0 with west. Playing for one of these gives you odds (havent calculated it) but guessing well over 80%. Even if you are utterly convinced the layout is as it is, when the C8 is not covered, both honors are not with west. Now depending how smoothly you play, playing the ace and a low club back looking like a man intending to ruff is a much better chance than running the C8 AND .. AND also allows you to make when the clubs were infact 2/4 or 3/3 all the time. The correct line is cash 2 diamonds and now club ace and another. This maximises all your chances. So if we take 100 of E/W peers and ask them to play the contract how many will run the C8 at trick 4? I would be amazed if we found 1 other pair. Not only that but if this pair are a decent pair then they can analyse all the above. Why did he bid\play it this way then ? I still havent got one response from any of you explaining this odd action ? You just throw up your hands - "Stuff like this happens all the time apparently". Really? You are totally happy with this scenario? Or maybe you are not but simply have no way of dealing with it under the current laws. Imo this hand goes well past odd? This is closer to omnipotent. The only logical explanation to produce 2 consceutive odd actions flying completely against all normal actions and playing for a precise no win distribution is because you knew what the hands were. Where do you draw the line ? K. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue May 12 17:29:02 2009 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (hirsch9000 at verizon.net) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: References: <530453.68221.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0294DC42-44F7-4A1C-A697-1173002FBF56@starpower.net> Message-ID: <629099.11538.qm@web84103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And this proves...nothing. N made an error. He didn't cover the C8 and kill the contract. If he did, this discussion would not be happening. W did not make an omnipotent play. He made a bad play that would have killed the contract if N was awake. N was dozing, and earned his score. "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence" - attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte If you can prove that W had a deal with N, then you've got something that requires action. Hirsch ________________________________ From: Karel To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:35:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Questionable action explainable The point I'm making is obvious. There are lots of hands where various degrees of "odd" things happen. In these cases you can't prove anything. The only evidence is the way in which the hand was processed frequently involving one or more hugely anti percentage actions. As numerous people have citied - bridge players do odd things. All I'm asking is where do you draw the line ? When does odd no longer justify the action ? Take the hand posted. I've already citied a possible reason for bidding 4D in my original post. If we were to give this hand to say 100 of E/W peers how many would bid 4D? IMO very few because the risk versus the gain is tiny. An odd action you say, fair enough. Now the play. At trick 4 declarer runs the C8 which against normal defence is a NO WIN play. I want to stress this. From a technical point of view running the 8 can NEVER win ever. Not only that but it plays for a precise layout of cards on which you CANNOT make the contract. The contract can be made with a massive amount of alternative distributions clubs 2/4 or 3/3, diamond 2/2 or even 3/1 or 4/0 with west. Playing for one of these gives you odds (havent calculated it) but guessing well over 80%. Even if you are utterly convinced the layout is as it is, when the C8 is not covered, both honors are not with west. Now depending how smoothly you play, playing the ace and a low club back looking like a man intending to ruff is a much better chance than running the C8 AND .. AND also allows you to make when the clubs were infact 2/4 or 3/3 all the time. The correct line is cash 2 diamonds and now club ace and another. This maximises all your chances. So if we take 100 of E/W peers and ask them to play the contract how many will run the C8 at trick 4? I would be amazed if we found 1 other pair. Not only that but if this pair are a decent pair then they can analyse all the above. Why did he bid\play it this way then ? I still havent got one response from any of you explaining this odd action ? You just throw up your hands - "Stuff like this happens all the time apparently". Really? You are totally happy with this scenario? Or maybe you are not but simply have no way of dealing with it under the current laws. Imo this hand goes well past odd? This is closer to omnipotent. The only logical explanation to produce 2 consceutive odd actions flying completely against all normal actions and playing for a precise no win distribution is because you knew what the hands were. Where do you draw the line ? 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/20090512/3f19bd8d/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 12 19:34:45 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 13:34:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: References: <530453.68221.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0294DC42-44F7-4A1C-A697-1173002FBF56@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 May 2009 10:35:36 -0400, Karel wrote: > The point I'm making is obvious. There are lots of hands where > various degrees of "odd" things happen. In these cases you can't > prove anything. The only evidence is the way in which the hand was > processed frequently involving one or more hugely anti percentage > actions. As numerous people have citied - bridge players do odd > things. All I'm asking is where do you draw the line ? When does odd > no longer justify the action ? > > > Take the hand posted. I've already citied a possible reason for > bidding 4D in my original post. If we were to give this hand to say > 100 of E/W peers how many would bid 4D? IMO very few because the risk > versus the gain is tiny. An odd action you say, fair enough. > > Now the play. At trick 4 declarer runs the C8 which against normal > defence is a NO WIN play. I want to stress this. From a technical > point of view running the 8 can NEVER win ever. Not only that but it > plays for a precise layout of cards on which you CANNOT make the > contract. The contract can be made with a massive amount of > alternative distributions clubs 2/4 or 3/3, diamond 2/2 or even 3/1 or > 4/0 with west. Playing for one of these gives you odds (havent > calculated it) but guessing well over 80%. > > Even if you are utterly convinced the layout is as it is, when the C8 > is not covered, both honors are not with west. Now depending how > smoothly you play, playing the ace and a low club back looking like a > man intending to ruff is a much better chance than running the C8 AND > .. AND also allows you to make when the clubs were infact 2/4 or 3/3 > all the time. > > The correct line is cash 2 diamonds and now club ace and another. > This maximises all your chances. > > So if we take 100 of E/W peers and ask them to play the contract how > many will run the C8 at trick 4? I would be amazed if we found 1 > other pair. Not only that but if this pair are a decent pair then > they can analyse all the above. Why did he bid\play it this way then > ? I still havent got one response from any of you explaining this > odd action ? You just throw up your hands - "Stuff like this happens > all the time apparently". Really? You are totally happy with this > scenario? Or maybe you are not but simply have no way of dealing with > it under the current laws. > > Imo this hand goes well past odd? This is closer to omnipotent. The > only logical explanation to produce 2 consceutive odd actions flying > completely against all normal actions and playing for a precise no win > distribution is because you knew what the hands were. > > Where do you draw the line ? Even if I knew that it was QJxxx onside, I still wouldn't have thought to make the play of running the 8 before cashing the king. It is a clever, thoughtful play, assuming a wire. Could it be that the player just clicked on the wrong card and didn't realize it until it was too late? I would need more hands than this. (BTW, some large number crunching should be able to find pairs who do well but not on the hands where good players do well.) From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed May 13 20:15:07 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 19:15:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <9E31C07A-A7F9-4F52-9BC4-425358BDEDF2@starpower.net> References: <200905111441.n4BEfoKo029188@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A08E116.4050700@nhcc.net> <9E31C07A-A7F9-4F52-9BC4-425358BDEDF2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A0B0E2B.5090800@talktalk.net> Initially, Eric Landau and Alain Gottcheiner denied that there were significant problems of interpretation of the laws about insufficient bids and calls out of turn. Now they seem to agree that there are practical problems with the basic application of the law. We can expect worse problems with less simple examples. Most ordinary directors will be unaware of belated official clarification, should there be any. Players will continue to suffer the usual inconsistent, incomprehensible, and controversial rulings.. IMO, these and many other over-sophisticated laws should be simplified. Here, law-makers could remove the options for players. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed May 13 20:53:30 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 19:53:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: References: <530453.68221.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0294DC42-44F7-4A1C-A697-1173002FBF56@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A0B172A.4060006@talktalk.net> [Karel] Imo this hand goes well past odd? This is closer to omnipotent. The only logical explanation to produce 2 consceutive odd actions flying completely against all normal actions and playing for a precise no win distribution is because you knew what the hands were. Where do you draw the line ? [Nigel] Some may remember a hilarious incident that occurred just after George Rosenkranz wrote a book advocating a conventional double of opponent's splinter. His wife doubled a club splinter and he led a killing diamond. He claimed no agreement and the TD and AC ruled in his favour. In such circumstances, I tend to think that a director should give the deal to a group of player-peers. He should tell them the gist of what happened while concealing the dramatis personae. If most of the jury think the actions highly suspect he should rule against the players. He should also record the deal. None of this should imply wrong-doing: such events often have an unlikely but true explanation. The problem is that, in practice, such a protocol is likely to be enforced only against unpopular or unskilled players. On-line there is a better solution. Suppose that you suspect a player of systematic cheating. Generate a smattering of special diagnostic deals. For example, slams that succeed on 3 finesses and a split. Games that fail on horrendous distribution. Defences that require bizarre leads to work. Now, if your suspect player continues to exhibit clairvoyance, you may justify punitive action. There is an enormous difference between *prediction* and *hind-sight*. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 13 22:31:55 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:31:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <4A0B0E2B.5090800@talktalk.net> References: <200905111441.n4BEfoKo029188@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A08E116.4050700@nhcc.net> <9E31C07A-A7F9-4F52-9BC4-425358BDEDF2@starpower.net> <4A0B0E2B.5090800@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <01483A3A-9A3D-4CF8-BE57-C99B93EBE676@starpower.net> On May 13, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Initially, Eric Landau and Alain Gottcheiner denied that there were > significant problems of interpretation of the laws about > insufficient > bids and calls out of turn. Is this for real? Is it April Fools' Day? Is Nigel a secret troll? He thinks I denied WHAT? Does he bother to read the posts? Is there another Eric Landau on this list? I lack sufficient words. > Now they seem to agree that there are practical problems with the > basic > application of the law. We can expect worse problems with less simple > examples. Most ordinary directors will be unaware of belated > official > clarification, should there be any. Players will continue to suffer > the > usual inconsistent, incomprehensible, and controversial rulings.. > > IMO, these and many other over-sophisticated laws should be > simplified. > Here, law-makers could remove the options for players. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jrmayne at mindspring.com Wed May 13 22:35:00 2009 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Diagnostic Deals was: Questionable action explainable Message-ID: <21943193.1242246900666.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Nigel Guthrie >Sent: May 13, 2009 2:53 PM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [BLML] Questionable action explainable > >[Karel] > >Imo this hand goes well past odd? This is closer to omnipotent. The >only logical explanation to produce 2 consceutive odd actions flying >completely against all normal actions and playing for a precise no win >distribution is because you knew what the hands were. > >Where do you draw the line ? > >[Nigel] >Some may remember a hilarious incident that occurred just after George Rosenkranz wrote a book advocating a conventional double of opponent's splinter. His wife doubled a club splinter and he led a killing diamond. He claimed no agreement and the TD and AC ruled in his favour. > >In such circumstances, I tend to think that a director should give the deal to a group of player-peers. He should tell them the gist of what happened while concealing the dramatis personae. If most of the jury think the actions highly suspect he should rule against the players. He should also record the deal. > >None of this should imply wrong-doing: such events often have an unlikely but true explanation. > >The problem is that, in practice, such a protocol is likely to be enforced only against unpopular or unskilled players. > >On-line there is a better solution. Suppose that you suspect a player of systematic cheating. Generate a smattering of special diagnostic deals. For example, slams that succeed on 3 finesses and a split. Games that fail on horrendous distribution. Defences that require bizarre leads to work. > This may be attractive on its face, but I believe it's a terrible idea. There are already plenty of loonballs who believe that online deals are tampered with someway, so actually salting them is a very bad idea. You can catch cheats - especially every-hand, odd-action cheats who you're trying to catch with diagnostic deals - with just the hand records from real hands, if you know what you are doing. FWIW, according to the self-admitted world's foremost expert on online bridge cheating, I am the world's foremost expert on online bridge cheating. >Now, if your suspect player continues to exhibit clairvoyance, you may justify punitive action. There is an enormous difference between *prediction* and *hind-sight*. > You don't need to do it this way and shouldn't. The damage done to the perceived integrity of the site will be worse than doing it right. --JRM From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed May 13 23:27:41 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 22:27:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <01483A3A-9A3D-4CF8-BE57-C99B93EBE676@starpower.net> References: <200905111441.n4BEfoKo029188@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A08E116.4050700@nhcc.net> <9E31C07A-A7F9-4F52-9BC4-425358BDEDF2@starpower.net> <4A0B0E2B.5090800@talktalk.net> <01483A3A-9A3D-4CF8-BE57-C99B93EBE676@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A0B3B4D.1080803@talktalk.net> [Eric Landau 1 - excerpt from early quote in this thread] For an individual player who seriously considers this issue -- even on the spot, encountering it at the table for the very first time -- double is clearly penalty, even if a double of a sufficient bid would have been "cards". It is not an agreement -- it is an "inference[] drawn from [] knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] -- and thus not subject to "local restriction". [Nigel] Initially, Eric Landau and Alain Gottcheiner denied that there were significant problems of interpretation of the laws about insufficient bids and calls out of turn. [Eric Landau 2] Is this for real? Is it April Fools' Day? Is Nigel a secret troll? He thinks I denied WHAT? Does he bother to read the posts? Is there another Eric Landau on this list? I lack sufficient words. [Nigel] :( Sorry for the misrepresentation. :) I would far rather count Eric as an ally than an adversary. The first quote above is typical of Eric's first posts on this topic. It is specific not general but perhaps Eric can forgive me for forming a mistaken impression. :( I apologise again. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 14 03:13:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:13:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A0B3B4D.1080803@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie quoting Eric Landau: >For an individual player who seriously considers this issue -- >even on the spot, encountering it at the table for the very >first time -- double is clearly penalty, even if a double of a >sufficient bid would have been "cards". It is not an agreement >-- it is an "inference[] drawn from [] knowledge and experience >of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] -- and >thus not subject to "local restriction". Richard Hills quoting Grattan Endicott: "Wrong. Utterly wrong." What may be deemed to be optimum partnership strategy playing the Eric Landau style is not optimum partnership strategy playing the equally (or more) popular Ron Klinger style. Nigel Guthrie petitio principii: >Now they seem to agree that there are practical problems with >the basic application of the law. We can expect worse problems Richard Hills quoting Grattan Endicott: "Wrong. Utterly wrong." By Nigel's own logic, the expected worse problems are predicated on an initial problem with the basic Law 40B3: "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity." Richard Hills misquoting Porgy and Bess: Merely because Eric Landau asserts that there is necessarily a logical paradox (which cannot be paradoctored) in the ACBL Law 40B3 disallowance regulation ..... It ain't necessarily so It ain't necessarily so De t'ings dat yo' think so swell In Eric's posts on bee ell em ell It ain't necessarily so Richard Hills quoting Eric Landau: >...let's start here: RHO opens 1C, I bid 5D, LHO bids 4S. >Partner calls the TD, is read his options, accepts 4S, and >doubles. > >I have no agreement perforce about the meaning of 1C-5D-4S-X, so >I must assume (as has partner) that this is not a "variation" of >my methods. Now I know what 1C-P-4S-X would mean, or what 1C-1D- >4S-X would mean, or 1C-2D-4S-X, or 1C-3D-4S-X, or 1C-4D-4S-X (and >I could go on), but they're all different; which is the one that >I'm not being allowed to "vary the meaning" of? Richard Hills quoting Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : and don't forget 1C-5D-5S-X. IMHO this would be the 'basic' >situation. Richard Hills misquoting Grattan Endicott: "Correct. Utterly correct." Any straightforward and sensible Kojaking Director would interpret the ACBL Law 40B3 disallowance regulation in accordance with the basic situation enunciated by Alain; the partnership agreements after acceptance of an insufficient bid must correspond (following an identical start to the auction) to the partnership agreements after a hypothetical sufficient bid with a parallel meaning. Richard Hills quoting Kojak (10th March 2007): >...What does it show? How far can we extend the English language >to come up with some atrocity? Have words lost their meaning, or >are they ultimately to be interpreted ad nauseum? The >childishness of what BLML has sometimes deteriorated to is >revealing. It's entertaining that supposedly intelligent people >go to the extremes they have demonstrated to get their names on >the "air." > >I only thank God that our game has so far survived these forays >into insanity... Steve Willner, foray by an intelligent person: >...What stops you from having an agreement? As you yourself have >written, if a similar auction has occurred before, you _do_ have >a tacit agreement or at least the rudiments of one. No problem >with that as far as I can see. > >... > >Exactly. They have nothing to do with the auction you proposed. >It's the same as 1C-1S-x versus 1C-2S-x. If you want to treat >one as penalty and the other as negative, the ACBL doesn't >object. > >... > >Consider instead 1C-5D-4S...oops...5S-x ? I think the ACBL is >saying you have to treat this as the same as 1C-5D-5S-x. > >Personally I don't see why the ACBL would wish to have any >restrictions here, but the one they have seems easy enough to >understand Richard Hills responds to Steve Willner's foray: A sadly cancelled interview show on ABC (the Aussie equivalent to the Pommy BBC) television, whose host Andrew Denton subtly induced forays by intelligent interviewees, had the extremely appropriate title of "Enough Rope". http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/ Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From john at asimere.com Thu May 14 03:29:44 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 02:29:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable References: <530453.68221.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com><0294DC42-44F7-4A1C-A697-1173002FBF56@starpower.net> Message-ID: <35A08F2DF9C94B158247D18A3442FBE2@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Questionable action explainable > On Tue, 12 May 2009 10:35:36 -0400, Karel wrote: > >> The point I'm making is obvious. There are lots of hands where >> various degrees of "odd" things happen. In these cases you can't >> prove anything. The only evidence is the way in which the hand was >> processed frequently involving one or more hugely anti percentage >> actions. As numerous people have citied - bridge players do odd >> things. All I'm asking is where do you draw the line ? When does odd >> no longer justify the action ? >> >> >> Take the hand posted. I've already citied a possible reason for >> bidding 4D in my original post. If we were to give this hand to say >> 100 of E/W peers how many would bid 4D? IMO very few because the risk >> versus the gain is tiny. An odd action you say, fair enough. >> >> Now the play. At trick 4 declarer runs the C8 which against normal >> defence is a NO WIN play. I want to stress this. From a technical >> point of view running the 8 can NEVER win ever. Not only that but it >> plays for a precise layout of cards on which you CANNOT make the >> contract. The contract can be made with a massive amount of >> alternative distributions clubs 2/4 or 3/3, diamond 2/2 or even 3/1 or >> 4/0 with west. Playing for one of these gives you odds (havent >> calculated it) but guessing well over 80%. If you lead the 8 in tempo, LHO won't split. In fact when you duck he'll lean forward to pick up partner's trick won by the king and may even look surprised. I asked 'er indoors to look at the hand after her partner had won the king, asking her why she hadn't split. Her comment "I didn't need to". QED. >> >> Even if you are utterly convinced the layout is as it is, when the C8 >> is not covered, both honors are not with west. Now depending how >> smoothly you play, playing the ace and a low club back looking like a >> man intending to ruff is a much better chance than running the C8 AND >> .. AND also allows you to make when the clubs were infact 2/4 or 3/3 >> all the time. >> >> The correct line is cash 2 diamonds and now club ace and another. >> This maximises all your chances. >> >> So if we take 100 of E/W peers and ask them to play the contract how >> many will run the C8 at trick 4? I would be amazed if we found 1 >> other pair. Not only that but if this pair are a decent pair then >> they can analyse all the above. Why did he bid\play it this way then >> ? I still havent got one response from any of you explaining this >> odd action ? You just throw up your hands - "Stuff like this happens >> all the time apparently". Really? You are totally happy with this >> scenario? Or maybe you are not but simply have no way of dealing with >> it under the current laws. >> >> Imo this hand goes well past odd? This is closer to omnipotent. The >> only logical explanation to produce 2 consceutive odd actions flying >> completely against all normal actions and playing for a precise no win >> distribution is because you knew what the hands were. >> >> Where do you draw the line ? > > Even if I knew that it was QJxxx onside, I still wouldn't have thought to > make the play of running the 8 before cashing the king. It is a clever, > thoughtful play, assuming a wire. > > Could it be that the player just clicked on the wrong card and didn't > realize it until it was too late? I would need more hands than this. > (BTW, some large number crunching should be able to find pairs who do well > but not on the hands where good players do well.) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 14 04:17:51 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:17:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <35A08F2DF9C94B158247D18A3442FBE2@JOHN> Message-ID: Karel asserted: >>Now the play. At trick 4 declarer runs the C8 which against normal >>defence is a NO WIN play. I want to stress this. From a technical >>point of view running the 8 can NEVER win ever. Not only that but >>it plays for a precise layout of cards on which you CANNOT make the >>contract. The contract can be made with a massive amount of >>alternative distributions clubs 2/4 or 3/3, diamond 2/2 or even 3/1 >>or 4/0 with west. Playing for one of these gives you odds (haven't >>calculated it) but guessing well over 80%. John (MadDog) Probst quibbled: >If you lead the 8 in tempo, LHO won't split. In fact when you duck >he'll lean forward to pick up partner's trick won by the king and >may even look surprised. I asked 'er indoors to look at the hand >after her partner had won the king, asking her why she hadn't split. >Her comment "I didn't need to". QED. Bols Bridge Tip Give declarer enough rope Tim Seres (Australia) Generally considered the best player Australia has ever produced, Tim Seres describes himself as a horse-racing investor. Whether this is a euphemism for betting at the races, or whether he owns racehorses, this is an extremely precarious way to earn a living and success needs similar qualities as at the bridge table - a sound knowledge of odds and percentages coupled with nerves of steel! Now in his seventies, Tim's high spots were in 1971 and 1979 when Australia finished third in the Bermuda Bowl. A contributor to several magazines, he has been awarded the Order of Australia for services to bridge. IN the long haul you win at bridge by avoiding error rather than by being brilliant. The expert may display an occasional glimpse of genius or elegance, but he owes his pre-eminence to the fact that he makes fewer mistakes than his fellow players. Because bridge is a game of errors, you should try to develop the knack of giving an opponent the chance to go wrong. One way of doing this is by providing the declarer with a choice of plays in a situation where he would otherwise be bound to make a winning play. Dummy AQT3 West??????????????????? ????????? East J975????????????????????? ????? ? 4 Declarer K862 This is the trump suit and declarer starts by laying down dummy's ace. If West follows small, declarer will play low to the king on the next round, exposing the finesse against the jack. (Declarer has no way to succeed if East has J9xx.) West, however, should drop the nine on the first round. Now declarer may continue with dummy's queen, playing East for Jxxx. THE next example is also well known: ?? Dummy QT9 West???????????????????????????????? East 753??????????????????????????????????KJ6 ?????????????????? Declarer ???????????????? ? A842 South plays low to the ten. If East wins with the jack, declarer has no choice but to enter dummy and finesse against the king on the next round. East therefore should win the first trick with the king. This affords declarer a losing option, as he may finesse the nine on the next round, playing West for Jxxx. OPPORTUNITIES for such plays come along much more frequently than many players realize. The following hand occurred in a top-class Pairs event: Dlr: South AKQ4 Vul: Both QT7 765 842 873 JT5 8643 AJ9 T9 QJ832 J975 QT 962 K52 AK4 AK63 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1C Pass 1S Pass 2NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass At this table South won the diamond lead and tested spades. On the ace and king of this suit East dropped the jack and ten! Not surprisingly, declarer assumed that the spades were 4-2 and he continued by playing low to the nine, hoping to re-enter dummy with a heart. But East of course ducked the king of hearts when it was led. The contract could now have been made only on double-dummy lines and in actual play South finished one down. The hapless declarer had fallen victim to a defender who followed the very profitable adage, 'Give declarer enough rope...' My BOLS bridge tip is just this: When you can see that declarer is bound to succeed by normal play, look for a chance to give him a losing option. It stands to reason that if you consistently give your opponent a chance to go wrong, he will sometimes take it! Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 14 04:53:55 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 22:53:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A day at the races (alerting natural bids) Message-ID: 1NT P P 2NT(1) (1) natural, not alerted; she had 21 HCP. (rest of auction omitted to spare gruesome details) The director was called to the table because of an insufficient bid. After the hand was over, she informed the pair that 2NT had to be alerted. That seemed to distress them. They were making a bid with a highly unexpected meaning. So it is fair that they should have to alert it. However, from her perspective, she was in an undiscussed situation and making a natural bid. To discover that her natural bid had to be alerted is, quite fairly, distressing. It is unlikely that she could remember this exact sequence to alert it later. And this incident pretty much signals that there were other landmines ahead. The general problem is a requirement to alert that you are not playing a convention. If you don't know the convention, this is essentially an impossible requirement. It would discourage beginners. I had the same problem playing with my mother 3 weeks ago in a LifeMaster/nonLifeMaster pairs. We were playing a number of old-fashioned bids. I knew exactly what the opponents expected and what would surprise them. But my mother was clueless. For example, we weren't playing negative doubles, which is supposed to be alerted in ACBL-land. But I could hardly explain that to my mother (in a way she can understand and remember). I settled for pre-alerting the opponents that we had some old-fashioned bids. Maybe this is a potential general solution. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 14 06:57:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:57:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Semicentenary semicelebration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tom Lehrer's sobering thought of some decades ago: "It is sobering to consider that when Mozart was my age he had already been dead for a year." >The operation was a success, because when the >opponents called the TD, the TD ruled, "6S was >clearly the probable bid for South. Pass does >not seem a logical alternative." Richard Hills' happy thought of this decade: With the advent of the new 2007 Lawbook and its specific definition of "logical alternative", the EBU no longer defines "the probable bid" as meaning "the only logical alternative". So if the same ruling came before the same EBU TD this year, the new EBU guidelines on "logical alternative" may well compel that EBU TD to change its mind and this time admit that Pass is a logical alternative. >But the patient died, because the AC adjusted the >score back to 5S, +510. > >But the operation was a success, because the >precedent established by the AC was questioned by >the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee, which wrote: >>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many >>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest >>extra values than that the bid is a stretch. >>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid >>conclusion of general application when a player >>is under pressure at a high level. Accordingly, >>although the TD's conclusion that Pass was not a >>logical alternative does not seem right, it >>would not have been surprising if the score had >>been allowed to stand on the basis that the >>successful action was not suggested by the >>unauthorised information. Richard Hills' happier thought of this decade: Again, the new 2007 Lawbook and the new Law 85A1 use of "balance of probabilities" for disputed facts may well cause the 2009 EBU Laws and Ethics Committee to differ with its predecessor. If there is a 60% chance that pard's hesitation is based on fear of missing a slam (demonstrably suggesting a raise to 6S) and there is a 40% chance that pard's hesitation is based on fear of a phantom sacrifice (demonstrably suggesting a pass of 5S), then the old EBU L&EC ruled "that the successful action was not suggested", but the new 2009 EBU L&EC may well choose to rule "that, on the 60% balance of probabilities, the very successful action was suggested". Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 14 08:29:33 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:29:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A0B172A.4060006@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Some may remember a hilarious incident that occurred >just after George Rosenkranz wrote a book advocating a >conventional double of opponent's splinter. His wife >doubled a club splinter and he led a killing diamond. >He claimed no agreement and the TD and AC ruled in his >favour. Barry Rigal: "...We can't have such veiled accusations of unethical behavior taking place without the culprits knowing the jeopardy they potentially put themselves in." Miami Vice - Appeals at the 1996 Summer NABC CASE TWENTY-SIX Subject: But, He Wrote The Book 'but did she read it?' Event: NABC IMP Pairs, 08 Aug 96, Second Session Board: 28 Dealer: West Vul: N/S Carole Weinstein Gorsey Q AKQ963 T853 K2 George Rosenkranz Edith Rosenkranz KJ54 T732 85 J --- Q9642 QJT8654 A73 Margie Sullivan A986 T742 AKJ7 9 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1H Pass 4C(1) Dbl 4NT Pass 5H Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted; splinter The Facts: 6H went down two, plus 200 for E/W. East led a diamond which West ruffed. West then returned a club and got a second diamond ruff. N/S called the Director because they thought that the diamond lead was unusual given that West had not opened 3C, had doubled 4C without the CA or CK, and did not double the final contract for an unusual lead. In addition, South had recently read a book written by West that discussed doubling splinter bids to suggest the lead of the lower unbid suit. N/S thought that there had been a failure to Alert the double of 4C. The Director ruled that the table result of 6H by North down two, plus 200 for E/W, would stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. The Committee determined that South was not at the table when the play on the board was completed, and did not find out the result on the board until N/S had a break a few deals later. When South realized that West had authored the book that discussed the conventional doubles of splinters, she called the Director, who then called E/W back to N/S's table whereupon N/S reiterated the facts they had stated to the Director. They added that they believed that the double did not promise so many clubs, and that when partner doubled for the lead of a suit, that suit would normally be led. They stated that they would not have had any concerns had East led the CA and then shifted to a diamond. In response to the Committee's questions West stated that this partnership did not have a "splinter double" agreement, that he had not opened 3C because of the quality of his spade suit, and that he did not double the final contract because he could not double if N/S chose to bid 6NT. When East was asked why she did not lead the CA to have a look at dummy she replied that she considered it, but decided to lead her best suit. The Committee examined the E/W convention card and found that a conventional double of splinter bids was not listed. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that there was no indication that E/W had a concealed partnership understanding, and allowed the table result of 6H down two, plus 200 for E/W, to stand. The Committee then had to determine the disposition of the deposit. The screening Director was questioned and told the Committee that appellants are not explicitly advised that their appeal may not have merit, nor do they recommend the Recorder System to appellants when that approach is considered more appropriate. [The latter statement was disputed by the screening Directors - Eds]. The Committee, in what they considered to be a very close decision, returned the deposit. Chairperson: Ralph Cohen Committee Members: Martin Caley, Nancy Sachs, (scribe: Linda Weinstein) Directors' Ruling: 90.9 Committee's Decision: 88.8 A lot of coincidences happened here: West wrote the book advocating "splinter doubles" to call for the lead of the lowest outside suit; East's hand is quite suitable for a save (if West's double suggests one, which it appears to do if it's not a "splinter double"), but East doesn't comply by saving (or even suggesting one by bidding 5C); East has a "normal" club lead, but doesn't lead it; when N/S get to 6H West knows that he wants the lead of a suit other than clubs but he doesn't double 6H (Lightner?) to try to attract a diamond lead; but East leads a diamond anyhow. Wow! Wolff: "The Director and Committee bought the Brooklyn Bridge. I realize that we are dealing with honest people, but the coincidence of the facts (if they are true) is too much to ignore. We shouldn't serve on Committees if we feel too much pressure." Bramley: "This appeal certainly had merit, if only to assure that the hand would see the light of day. While there is no proof of an infraction from the evidence here, I find N/S's argument provocative and E/W's defense of their actions unconvincing. I think that most players would double 6H with the diamond void, since a successful run out to 6NT looks very unlikely, and partner will probably lead a club otherwise. East's argument about strong diamonds makes no sense at all. I think we would be hard pressed to find a player that would not lead the CA. Despite the absence of a basis for an adjustment, there is a powerful basis for this hand to be recorded. Apparently the screening Directors should get their story straight." Goldman: "I believe that this appeal had a great deal of merit, and that if E/W had been of lesser stature a different decision might have occurred." Do you really think that this Committee had "stars" in their eyes, Goldie? Martel: "The Committee should have probed further as to what was going on, as the E/W actions appear unlikely unless the double of 4C suggested a save. (Then the double and lead make sense.) If the double asked for a club lead it makes no sense, nor does East's diamond lead. If the cards strongly suggest that a pair has an agreement, they should normally be presumed to have it. To suggest that this was an appeal without merit was a joke. N/S were entitled to an explanation of E/W's apparently unusual actions." Rosenberg: "The Director was correct to make N/S appeal, because there was no evidence of an infraction. The reason that West doubled 4C should have been documented." Treadwell: "Another attempt to win in Committee what had been lost at the table. As the Committee report said, it was a close call as to whether the deposit should be returned." Rigal: "An interesting position; it seems that the director was bang on, and that the Recorder system covered this position precisely. So, if N/S were not advised of their best course of action, the appeal deposit should be returned. If they were, it should be kept. We can't have such veiled accusations of unethical behavior taking place without the culprits knowing the jeopardy they potentially put themselves in." Passell: "Insulting to E/W to have to go to Committee. The deposit can't possibly be returned in this type of case." Weinstein: "Referring to the subject title, Mr. Bill's (Pollack) question was 'but did she read it?' It's not clear to me whether N/S were aware of E/W's denial of the use of splinter doubles when the protest was made. Without that awareness the appeal had merit; with that awareness it lacked merit, and the proper N/S recourse (if they remained suspicious) was to have the hand recorded." Did she, or didn't she? Maybe only her hairdresser knows for sure. But, whether East read West's book or not, there is no reason to impute a partnership agreement to her choice of bathroom literature. In part, that is why many of our panelists feel that there is no basis for adjustment. Where Wolffie is prepared to go all the way and adjust the score (on the basis that the evidence is sufficient that E/W knew something that N/S did not, and that N/S might have stayed out of slam had North known that East would lead a diamond), others would have kept the deposit, tread(welling) much more cautiously. What's wrong with this picture? Situations involving suspicions like this are always uncomfortable, but it's important that we do our best to allow human nature to have its forum. How can we deprive N/S of the opportunity to exorcise their demons about this case? By having the case aired, and by having the Committee find no basis for adjustment, N/S were able to deal with the remarkable coincidences they encountered and satisfy themselves (at least in theory) that justice was served. The appeal was certainly not one without merit, even though it might have ruffled some feathers. Perhaps such coincidences call for feather-ruffling. Just ask Wolffie, who is careful to state that he is dealing with honest people. We're prepared to give E/W the benefit of the doubt, but would have the case recorded, if only to afford E/W the protection from innuendo that might ensue if the case were swept under the rug. Let's face it; the facts of the case must merit at least a raised eyebrow. It must be right to hear it. We feel that the merits issue was not as close as the Committee deemed it to be. Not close at all. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 14 12:11:56 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:11:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF General Conditions of Contest (Sao Paulo, 2009) Message-ID: <001b01c9d47e$572d1570$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <001c01c9d47e$5757f600$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:53 AM Subject: [BLML] A day at the races (alerting natural bids) > 1NT P P 2NT(1) > > (1) natural, not alerted; she had 21 HCP. > > (rest of auction omitted to spare gruesome details) > > The director was called to the table because of an insufficient bid. After > the hand was over, she informed the pair that 2NT had to be alerted. That > seemed to distress them. > > They were making a bid with a highly unexpected meaning. So it is fair > that they should have to alert it. > > However, from her perspective, she was in an undiscussed situation and > making a natural bid. To discover that her natural bid had to be alerted > is, quite fairly, distressing. It is unlikely that she could remember this > exact sequence to alert it later. And this incident pretty much signals > that there were other landmines ahead. > > The general problem is a requirement to alert that you are not playing a > convention. If you don't know the convention, this is essentially an > impossible requirement. It would discourage beginners. > > I had the same problem playing with my mother 3 weeks ago in a > LifeMaster/nonLifeMaster pairs. We were playing a number of old-fashioned > bids. I knew exactly what the opponents expected and what would surprise > them. But my mother was clueless. For example, we weren't playing negative > doubles, which is supposed to be alerted in ACBL-land. But I could hardly > explain that to my mother (in a way she can understand and remember). > > I settled for pre-alerting the opponents that we had some old-fashioned > bids. Maybe this is a potential general solution. > +=+ Do I understand that the alerting regulations predicate that in the given situation an unnatural bid is natural? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 14 12:40:23 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:40:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <4A0B0E2B.5090800@talktalk.net> References: <200905111441.n4BEfoKo029188@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A08E116.4050700@nhcc.net> <9E31C07A-A7F9-4F52-9BC4-425358BDEDF2@starpower.net> <4A0B0E2B.5090800@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <4A0BF517.5040706@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > Initially, Eric Landau and Alain Gottcheiner denied that there were > significant problems of interpretation of the laws about insufficient > bids and calls out of turn. > Now they seem to agree that there are practical problems with the basic > application of the law. We can expect worse problems with less simple > examples. Most ordinary directors will be unaware of belated official > clarification, should there be any. Players will continue to suffer the > usual inconsistent, incomprehensible, and controversial rulings.. > > IMO, these and many other over-sophisticated laws should be simplified. > Here, law-makers could remove the options for players. > AG : removing NOS's options could have a very dangerous effect, as it would encourage infractions, and that's a price I'm not ready to pay. About your first line : there will always be interpretation problems if some persons want to create problems. Making the Laws more precise and using non-ambiguous words are good ways to limit the impact of this. Changing the Laws isn't. Changing a Law in the OS's direction, because some OS's and TDs aren't at ease with them, seems wrong to me. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 14 12:52:32 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:52:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A0BF7F0.9030605@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > Richard Hills quoting Alain Gottcheiner: > > >> AG : and don't forget 1C-5D-5S-X. IMHO this would be the 'basic' >> situation. >> > > Richard Hills misquoting Grattan Endicott: > > "Correct. Utterly correct." > > Any straightforward and sensible Kojaking Director would interpret > the ACBL Law 40B3 disallowance regulation in accordance with the > basic situation enunciated by Alain; the partnership agreements > after acceptance of an insufficient bid must correspond (following > an identical start to the auction) to the partnership agreements > after a hypothetical sufficient bid with a parallel meaning. > AG : and this is what I meant in my recent response to Nigel : the problems come, not from the actual laws, but from the fact that there are many non-straightforward, non-sensible TDs, ACs and OBs, who prefer to criticize and restrict than to judge. I doubt changing the laws is the way to solve this problem. Making them more precise (i.e. saying which kind of 'variations' are concerned by this paragraph) could help a little. Best regards Alain PS : about the will to criticize : one of Belgium's best-considerd TDs told me last night that 'I need a course about ethics' because I don't see the need to alert a 1-of-a-minor opening within a (pre-alerted) weak NT framework. Can't it be as short when playing strong NTs ? BTA the plaintiff was his usual partner. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu May 14 16:23:07 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:23:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A0C294B.8010708@talktalk.net> [Richard.Hills quoting Barry Rigal] "...We can't have such veiled accusations of unethical behavior taking place without the culprits knowing the jeopardy they potentially put themselves in." [Nigel] IMO: [A] If George Rosenkranz had been on the AC, then he would have ruled against himself. - the question should *not* be "Do Mr and Mrs Rosenkranz have a concealed understanding?" - the question should be "Would this case afford strong grounds for suspicion against an unknown pair?" Hence I believe that Barry Rigal's "Caesar's Wife" argument is wrong. Nevertheless, law-makers should take heed of Barry Rigal's comment. Sometimes, a director may summon up the courage to issue a PP or DP against an unskilled or unpopular player; but he is loth to risk possible legal ramifications when dealing with a rich expert or secretary bird. [B] When dealing with an infraction, Bridge law currently tries to restore the status quo (before the infraction occurred). The worthy assumption seems to be that the game is for ladies and gentlemen who wouldn't stoop to doubtful behaviour to gain an unfair advantage. Some of us feel that Bridge Law should be more deterrent. Where possible, deterrence should be built into the basic law before it descends to PPs, DPs, and so on. Draconian automatic penalties are part of most games and are rarely resented. A player (gentleman or not) does not protest if he is severely penalised for accidentally grounding his club in a bunker. I suppose he can console himself that the law is fairly and consistently applied to everybody. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 14 16:29:10 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:29:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2E893F0A-BE92-43B4-AF09-A905E76F2D7B@starpower.net> On May 13, 2009, at 9:13 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie quoting Eric Landau: > >> For an individual player who seriously considers this issue -- >> even on the spot, encountering it at the table for the very >> first time -- double is clearly penalty, even if a double of a >> sufficient bid would have been "cards". It is not an agreement >> -- it is an "inference[] drawn from [] knowledge and experience >> of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] -- and >> thus not subject to "local restriction". > > Richard Hills quoting Grattan Endicott: > > "Wrong. Utterly wrong." > > What may be deemed to be optimum partnership strategy playing the > Eric Landau style is not optimum partnership strategy playing the > equally (or more) popular Ron Klinger style. > > Nigel Guthrie petitio principii: > >> Now they seem to agree that there are practical problems with >> the basic application of the law. We can expect worse problems > > Richard Hills quoting Grattan Endicott: > > "Wrong. Utterly wrong." > > By Nigel's own logic, the expected worse problems are predicated > on an initial problem with the basic > > Law 40B3: > > "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a > partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or > play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any > irregularity." > > Richard Hills misquoting Porgy and Bess: > > Merely because Eric Landau asserts that there is necessarily a > logical paradox (which cannot be paradoctored) in the ACBL Law > 40B3 disallowance regulation ..... > > It ain't necessarily so > It ain't necessarily so > De t'ings dat yo' think so swell > In Eric's posts on bee ell em ell > It ain't necessarily so > > Richard Hills quoting Eric Landau: > >> ...let's start here: RHO opens 1C, I bid 5D, LHO bids 4S. >> Partner calls the TD, is read his options, accepts 4S, and >> doubles. >> >> I have no agreement perforce about the meaning of 1C-5D-4S-X, so >> I must assume (as has partner) that this is not a "variation" of >> my methods. Now I know what 1C-P-4S-X would mean, or what 1C-1D- >> 4S-X would mean, or 1C-2D-4S-X, or 1C-3D-4S-X, or 1C-4D-4S-X (and >> I could go on), but they're all different; which is the one that >> I'm not being allowed to "vary the meaning" of? > > Richard Hills quoting Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : and don't forget 1C-5D-5S-X. IMHO this would be the 'basic' >> situation. > > Richard Hills misquoting Grattan Endicott: > > "Correct. Utterly correct." > > Any straightforward and sensible Kojaking Director would interpret > the ACBL Law 40B3 disallowance regulation in accordance with the > basic situation enunciated by Alain; the partnership agreements > after acceptance of an insufficient bid must correspond (following > an identical start to the auction) to the partnership agreements > after a hypothetical sufficient bid with a parallel meaning. Where Riichard and I disagree is over what constitutes "a hypothetical sufficient bid with a parallel meaning". I start from the premise that the IBer thought he was making a sufficient bid. So whatever he thought 4S meant, it was the same as the meaning of a 4S bid in some other auction, not the same as a 5S bid on this one. What Alain calls the "'basic' situation" is simply an additional possiblity not to be overlooked, but it may not be in any way relevant -- why should the oppos be assumed to have *any* 5S bid that has the same meaning as *any* 4S bid, much less these particular ones? Whether it is even a possible consideration is a function of the opponents' agreements, not yours. Because the IBer intended 4S to mean whatever it would have meant in whatever he thought the auction was, "a hypothetical sufficient bid with a parallel meaning" to the insufficient 4S bid must exist. But that "hypothetical sufficient bid" that must exist can only be a *sufficient* 4S bid, not some other call entirely. So I'm sticking to my "which one?" argument above. > Richard Hills quoting Kojak (10th March 2007): > >> ...What does it show? How far can we extend the English language >> to come up with some atrocity? Have words lost their meaning, or >> are they ultimately to be interpreted ad nauseum? The >> childishness of what BLML has sometimes deteriorated to is >> revealing. It's entertaining that supposedly intelligent people >> go to the extremes they have demonstrated to get their names on >> the "air." >> >> I only thank God that our game has so far survived these forays >> into insanity... > > Steve Willner, foray by an intelligent person: > >> ...What stops you from having an agreement? As you yourself have >> written, if a similar auction has occurred before, you _do_ have >> a tacit agreement or at least the rudiments of one. No problem >> with that as far as I can see. >> >> ... >> >> Exactly. They have nothing to do with the auction you proposed. >> It's the same as 1C-1S-x versus 1C-2S-x. If you want to treat >> one as penalty and the other as negative, the ACBL doesn't >> object. >> >> ... >> >> Consider instead 1C-5D-4S...oops...5S-x ? I think the ACBL is >> saying you have to treat this as the same as 1C-5D-5S-x. >> >> Personally I don't see why the ACBL would wish to have any >> restrictions here, but the one they have seems easy enough to >> understand Steve understands. It is logically meaningful (albeit IMHO misguided) to demand that 1C-5D-4S(rejected),5S-X carry the same meaning as 1C-5D-5S-X. But this has no relevance or analogy whatsoever to the auction 1C-5D-4S(accepted)-X, and to attempt to force an analogy leads to logical impossibility -- a call whose presumed meaning must be the same as... to quote myself, "well, what, then?" > Richard Hills responds to Steve Willner's foray: > > A sadly cancelled interview show on ABC (the Aussie equivalent to > the Pommy BBC) television, whose host Andrew Denton subtly induced > forays by intelligent interviewees, had the extremely appropriate > title of "Enough Rope". > http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/ Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 14 17:12:00 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:12:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A day at the races (alerting natural bids) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8BEF2B39-A79F-4D94-9011-B2B80A768F25@starpower.net> On May 13, 2009, at 10:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 1NT P P 2NT(1) > > (1) natural, not alerted; she had 21 HCP. > > (rest of auction omitted to spare gruesome details) > > The director was called to the table because of an insufficient > bid. After > the hand was over, she informed the pair that 2NT had to be > alerted. That > seemed to distress them. > > They were making a bid with a highly unexpected meaning. So it is fair > that they should have to alert it. > > However, from her perspective, she was in an undiscussed situation and > making a natural bid. To discover that her natural bid had to be > alerted > is, quite fairly, distressing. It is unlikely that she could > remember this > exact sequence to alert it later. And this incident pretty much > signals > that there were other landmines ahead. > > The general problem is a requirement to alert that you are not > playing a > convention. If you don't know the convention, this is essentially an > impossible requirement. It would discourage beginners. > > I had the same problem playing with my mother 3 weeks ago in a > LifeMaster/nonLifeMaster pairs. We were playing a number of old- > fashioned > bids. I knew exactly what the opponents expected and what would > surprise > them. But my mother was clueless. For example, we weren't playing > negative > doubles, which is supposed to be alerted in ACBL-land. But I could > hardly > explain that to my mother (in a way she can understand and remember). > > I settled for pre-alerting the opponents that we had some old- > fashioned > bids. Maybe this is a potential general solution. The ACBL, although it has officially rejected it as doctrine, continues to be infected by the counter-productive idea that any given call should have exactly one non-alertable meaning. The mass of bridge players that joined the ACBL after World War II (taking the ACBL to membership heights it can only be nostalgic about today) overwhelmingly employed the Goren System (then called "standard American"), which was first published in its essential form in 1949. When the ACBL introduced alerts, and for decades thereafter, they were very careful to insure that anyone who continued to bid as pretty much everyone did in the '50s would not be required to alert any of their calls. But that generation began to die out, the objections to having to alert things that "everyone but the LOLs" played (like negative doubles) became too clamorous to ignore, and the "only-one-alertable-meaning" crowd, once negative doubles became not alertable, eventually got their way and made penalty doubles alertable. Strong two-bids and other basic elements of standard Goren followed. Four-card major openings are likely to be next on the block. There is a bigger picture here. In the ACBL's heyday, the majority of new duplicate bridge players in America came to duplicate from social or rubber bridge. Today, the majority of new players come up through ACBL-sponsored classes, beginners' games, and I/N programs, and have never played anything but duplicate. In recent years the ACBL has changed the way it regulates the game to reflect this. Players like Bob's mother suffer in consequence, but there's no denying that the game has changed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 14 17:59:27 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:59:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ED89854-393E-4AB0-B271-E6D9EC174E1F@starpower.net> On May 14, 2009, at 2:29 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Goldman: "I believe that this appeal had a > great deal of merit, and that if E/W had > been of lesser stature a different decision > might have occurred." > > Do you really think that this Committee had > "stars" in their eyes, Goldie? I can't speak defintively for the late Mr. Goldman, but I'm confident his answer would be, Yes, absolutely. I once brought an appeal against a big-name expert pair, after they had described their 4NT call, in reply to an inquiry, as "Blackwood", having neglected to mention that their actual agreement was 14-30 RKCB, and, assuming "Blackwood" to mean "ordinary Blackwood", I had misdefended after miscounting their aces. On the advice of the screening director, a personal friend, I withdrew the appeal for fear of losing my $50 deposit (a rather significant amount at the time) -- the details of the thread case, I submit, justify my concern. Word got around, and Mr. Goldman, a say-hello acquaintance but not someone I would normally converse with, sought me out to offer consolation and explain the facts of life in the ACBL, namely that had the big- name pair been on the other side of the ruling, it would still have been up to me to appeal. He regretted that he had not arrived in time to put up the deposit himself and appear on my behalf before the AC. I got the very definite impression that the pro-expert bias of ACBL TDs and ACs (of which he was surely a beneificiary!) was something he was knowledgeable about and deplored. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu May 14 19:46:37 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 09:46:37 -0800 Subject: [BLML] A day at the races (alerting natural bids) References: <8BEF2B39-A79F-4D94-9011-B2B80A768F25@starpower.net> Message-ID: <96516D839FEB4B11B426C87026A090A0@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > The ACBL, although it has officially rejected it as doctrine, > continues to be infected by the counter-productive idea that any > given call should have exactly one non-alertable meaning. > > The mass of bridge players that joined the ACBL after World War II > (taking the ACBL to membership heights it can only be nostalgic > about > today) overwhelmingly employed the Goren System (then called > "standard American"), which was first published in its essential > form > in 1949. Yes, you could see games being played by both sexes all over the lawns at colleges. Everyone played about the same system, so partnerships were easily formed and changed. Bridge was much more easier to learn then. When conventions began to proliferate in duplicate games, players quit the ACBL in great numbers. The game was more fun before that, much more popular, so how can the scientists claim they have improved the game? When the ACBL introduced alerts, and for decades > thereafter, they were very careful to insure that anyone who > continued to bid as pretty much everyone did in the '50s would not > be > required to alert any of their calls. But that generation began > to > die out, the objections to having to alert things that "everyone > but > the LOLs" played (like negative doubles) became too clamorous to > ignore, and the "only-one-alertable-meaning" crowd, once negative > doubles became not alertable, eventually got their way and made > penalty doubles alertable. Strong two-bids and other basic > elements > of standard Goren followed. Four-card major openings are likely > to > be next on the block. I'm afraid so, even though I show them plainly under "General Approach." Also, they are likely to require an Alert of my possible bypass of a very weak major suit in favor of a notrump bid that describes my hand better. It was distressing to me as one-by-one my natural calls became Alertable: Penalty doubles of overcalls, strong jump overcalls, and natural 3NT openings based on a solid minor suit plus stoppers outside. Others (which I don't play anymore) are natural 2D, 2H, or 2S responses to a 1NT opening that are not signoffs. Goren-like responses (not forcing, but not signoffs) are Alertable now. I don't understand why signoffs need not be Alerted, but understanding all of the Alert Procedure is a futile undertaking. In 2002 the ACBL issued revised Alert regulations aimed at simplifying them. Humph! I was hard put to fit them onto two pages, and there is nothing simple about them. To see my effort in the form of a pdf file, look in my Web site under Bridge Laws and Regulations. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 14 20:00:26 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:00:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A day at the races (alerting natural bids) In-Reply-To: <96516D839FEB4B11B426C87026A090A0@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8BEF2B39-A79F-4D94-9011-B2B80A768F25@starpower.net> <96516D839FEB4B11B426C87026A090A0@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2E574B61-E4B4-4194-90BE-E775164B6DBA@starpower.net> On May 14, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > Yes, you could see games being played by both sexes all over the > lawns at colleges. Everyone played about the same system, so > partnerships were easily formed and changed. Bridge was much more > easier to learn then. When conventions began to proliferate in > duplicate games, players quit the ACBL in great numbers. The game > was more fun before that, much more popular, so how can the > scientists claim they have improved the game? Oh, I'd say they can legitimately claim to have improved the *game*, but neither Marvin nor I am prepared to take the leap from improving the game to improving the *passtime*, which is a very different thing. Today's competitive bridge players can certainly outbid (and so outscore) their predecessors, but that doesn't mean they get as much enjoyment out of it, which *is* supposed to be the point of taking up a hobby, isn't it? Once upon a time you could go to a tournament, pick up a stranger for a partner, sit down and play, without being fatally handicapped by the lack of hours of system discussion reinforced by a couple of on- line practice sessions. Indeed, one's ability to do so successfully was thought to be a crucial component of high-level expertise, while today we have successful players at the highest levels who would be pretty well lost in any but their regular partnerships. It's a cliche that "bridge is a partnership game", but the same advances in scientific bidding that have so improved the partnership game have also, regrettably for some, completely killed off serious individual competition. We have fantasized in the past about two different lawbooks, one for "serious" games and one for "casual" ones, reflecting the conflicting desires to optimize "the game" vs. "the passtime". Nobody thinks they would be identical. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu May 14 20:32:35 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:32:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A0C63C3.6060404@talktalk.net> [Richard.Hills quoting Miami Vice - Appeals at the 1996 Summer NABCCASE TWENTY-SIX] Subject: But, He Wrote The Book 'but did she read it?' Event: NABC IMP Pairs, 08 Aug 96, Second Session Board: 28 Dealer: West Vul: N/S Carole Weinstein Gorsey Q AKQ963 T853 K2 George Rosenkranz Edith Rosenkranz KJ54 T732 85 J --- Q9642 QJT8654 A73 Margie Sullivan A986 T742 AKJ7 9 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1H Pass 4C(1) Dbl 4NT Pass 5H Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted; splinter The Facts: 6H went down two, plus 200 for E/W. East led a diamond which West ruffed. West then returned a club and got a second diamond ruff. N/S called the Director because they thought that the diamond lead was unusual given that West had not opened 3C, had doubled 4C without the CA or CK, and did not double the final contract for an unusual lead. In addition, South had recently read a book written by West that discussed doubling splinter bids to suggest the lead of the lower unbid suit. N/S thought that there had been a failure to Alert the double of 4C. The Director ruled that the table result of 6H by North down two, plus 200 for E/W, would stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. The Committee determined that South was not at the table when the play on the board was completed, and did not find out the result on the board until N/S had a break a few deals later. When South realized that West had authored the book that discussed the conventional doubles of splinters, she called the Director, who then called E/W back to N/S's table whereupon N/S reiterated the facts they had stated to the Director. They added that they believed that the double did not promise so many clubs, and that when partner doubled for the lead of a suit, that suit would normally be led. They stated that they would not have had any concerns had East led the CA and then shifted to a diamond. In response to the Committee's questions West stated that this partnership did not have a "splinter double" agreement, that he had not opened 3C because of the quality of his spade suit, and that he did not double the final contract because he could not double if N/S chose to bid 6NT. When East was asked why she did not lead the CA to have a look at dummy she replied that she considered it, but decided to lead her best suit. The Committee examined the E/W convention card and found that a conventional double of splinter bids was not listed. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that there was no indication that E/W had a concealed partnership understanding, and allowed the table result of 6H down two, plus 200 for E/W, to stand. The Committee then had to determine the disposition of the deposit. The screening Director was questioned and told the Committee that appellants are not explicitly advised that their appeal may not have merit, nor do they recommend the Recorder System to appellants when that approach is considered more appropriate. [The latter statement was disputed by the screening Directors - Eds]. The Committee, in what they considered to be a very close decision, returned the deposit. Chairperson: Ralph Cohen Committee Members: Martin Caley, Nancy Sachs, (scribe: Linda Weinstein) Directors' Ruling: 90.9 Committee's Decision: 88.8 A lot of coincidences happened here: West wrote the book advocating "splinter doubles" to call for the lead of the lowest outside suit; East's hand is quite suitable for a save (if West's double suggests one, which it appears to do if it's not a "splinter double"), but East doesn't comply by saving (or even suggesting one by bidding 5C); East has a "normal" club lead, but doesn't lead it; when N/S get to 6H West knows that he wants the lead of a suit other than clubs but he doesn't double 6H (Lightner?) to try to attract a diamond lead; but East leads a diamond anyhow. Wow! Wolff: "The Director and Committee bought the Brooklyn Bridge. I realize that we are dealing with honest people, but the coincidence of the facts (if they are true) is too much to ignore. We shouldn't serve on Committees if we feel too much pressure." Bramley: "This appeal certainly had merit, if only to assure that the hand would see the light of day. While there is no proof of an infraction from the evidence here, I find N/S's argument provocative and E/W's defense of their actions unconvincing. I think that most players would double 6H with the diamond void, since a successful run out to 6NT looks very unlikely, and partner will probably lead a club otherwise. East's argument about strong diamonds makes no sense at all. I think we would be hard pressed to find a player that would not lead the CA. Despite the absence of a basis for an adjustment, there is a powerful basis for this hand to be recorded. Apparently the screening Directors should get their story straight." Goldman: "I believe that this appeal had a great deal of merit, and that if E/W had been of lesser stature a different decision might have occurred." Do you really think that this Committee had "stars" in their eyes, Goldie? Martel: "The Committee should have probed further as to what was going on, as the E/W actions appear unlikely unless the double of 4C suggested a save. (Then the double and lead make sense.) If the double asked for a club lead it makes no sense, nor does East's diamond lead. If the cards strongly suggest that a pair has an agreement, they should normally be presumed to have it. To suggest that this was an appeal without merit was a joke. N/S were entitled to an explanation of E/W's apparently unusual actions." Rosenberg: "The Director was correct to make N/S appeal, because there was no evidence of an infraction. The reason that West doubled 4C should have been documented." Treadwell: "Another attempt to win in Committee what had been lost at the table. As the Committee report said, it was a close call as to whether the deposit should be returned." Rigal: "An interesting position; it seems that the director was bang on, and that the Recorder system covered this position precisely. So, if N/S were not advised of their best course of action, the appeal deposit should be returned. If they were, it should be kept. We can't have such veiled accusations of unethical behavior taking place without the culprits knowing the jeopardy they potentially put themselves in." Passell: "Insulting to E/W to have to go to Committee. The deposit can't possibly be returned in this type of case." Weinstein: "Referring to the subject title, Mr. Bill's (Pollack) question was 'but did she read it?' It's not clear to me whether N/S were aware of E/W's denial of the use of splinter doubles when the protest was made. Without that awareness the appeal had merit; with that awareness it lacked merit, and the proper N/S recourse (if they remained suspicious) was to have the hand recorded." Did she, or didn't she? Maybe only her hairdresser knows for sure. But, whether East read West's book or not, there is no reason to impute a partnership agreement to her choice of bathroom literature. In part, that is why many of our panelists feel that there is no basis for adjustment. Where Wolffie is prepared to go all the way and adjust the score (on the basis that the evidence is sufficient that E/W knew something that N/S did not, and that N/S might have stayed out of slam had North known that East would lead a diamond), others would have kept the deposit, tread(welling) much more cautiously. What's wrong with this picture? Situations involving suspicions like this are always uncomfortable, but it's important that we do our best to allow human nature to have its forum. How can we deprive N/S of the opportunity to exorcise their demons about this case? By having the case aired, and by having the Committee find no basis for adjustment, N/S were able to deal with the remarkable coincidences they encountered and satisfy themselves (at least in theory) that justice was served. The appeal was certainly not one without merit, even though it might have ruffled some feathers. Perhaps such coincidences call for feather-ruffling. Just ask Wolffie, who is careful to state that he is dealing with honest people. We're prepared to give E/W the benefit of the doubt, but would have the case recorded, if only to afford E/W the protection from innuendo that might ensue if the case were swept under the rug. Let's face it; the facts of the case must merit at least a raised eyebrow. It must be right to hear it. We feel that the merits issue was not as close as the Committee deemed it to be. Not close at all. [Nigel] Thanks Richard. I see I mixed up East and West in my recollection. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu May 14 22:00:22 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 21:00:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <4A0BF517.5040706@ulb.ac.be> References: <200905111441.n4BEfoKo029188@cfa.harvard.edu> <4A08E116.4050700@nhcc.net> <9E31C07A-A7F9-4F52-9BC4-425358BDEDF2@starpower.net> <4A0B0E2B.5090800@talktalk.net> <4A0BF517.5040706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A0C7856.7040707@talktalk.net> [Alain Gottcheiner] Removing NOS's options could have a very dangerous effect, as it would encourage infractions, and that's a price I'm not ready to pay. About your first line : there will always be interpretation problems if some persons want to create problems. Making the Laws more precise and using non-ambiguous words are good ways to limit the impact of this. Changing the Laws isn't. Changing a Law in the OS's direction, because some OS's and TDs aren't at ease with them, seems wrong to me. [Nigel] When I express a view, I prefix it with "IMO". Statements of the obvious, I leave unadorned. Few BLMLers seem to distinguish fact from opinion. Or perhaps they believe that what they say 3 times is true). I disagree with all of Alain's above arguments. IMO... [A] Removing player options need not reduce sanctions. For example, substituting pass for an illegal call and designating it as unauthorised information to the offender's partner would be a considerable deterrent. [B] Current law favours secretary-birds *on both sides*. For example, the current law about insufficient bids gives options *to both sides*. As I understand the law, unless locally forbidden, as non-offender *or as offender*, you may agree different treatments contingent on the both the option chosen by *your side* and the option chosen by the *other side*. [C] I am a player not a director, so I think the law-makers should make the rules simple enough for me to understand. But even clarification, as advocated by Alain, would be a *major change*; and require much work. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 15 06:09:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:09:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In a private email, another blmler wrote: "I don't wear socks." Latin translator Peter Needham, discussion of socks: Harrius surrexit. "domine - Professor Dumbledore? an licet mihi te aliquid rogare?" "scilicet, id modo fecisti," Dumbledore subrisit. "tamen licit tibi unum plus rogare." "quid tu vides cum in speculum inspexisti?" "quid ego? video me ipsum tenentem par tibialium crassorum e lana factorum." Harrius oculos in eum fixit. "nunquam satis tibialium habere potes," inquit Dumbledore. "aliud festum nativitatis Christi advenit et abiit neque par unum accepi. homines nil nisi libros mihi dant." Harrius in lectum redierat priusquam in animum incidit Dumbledorem fortasse non omnino veracem fuisse. sed tum intellexit, cum Scabbersum de pulvino deturbaret, se rogavisse aliquid admodum privatum. >Weinstein: "Referring to the subject >title, Mr. Bill's (Pollack) question was >'but did she read it?' It's not clear to >me whether N/S were aware of E/W's >denial of the use of splinter doubles >when the protest was made. Without that >awareness the appeal had merit; with >that awareness it lacked merit, and the >proper N/S recourse (if they remained >suspicious) was to have the hand >recorded." > >Did she, or didn't she? Maybe only her >hairdresser knows for sure. But, whether >East read West's book or not, there is >no reason to impute a partnership >agreement to her choice of bathroom >literature. In part, that is why many of >our panelists feel that there is no >basis for adjustment. Richard Hills: The casebook listed Eric Kokish and Rich Colker as co-Editors; I suspect that this editorial comment on the Bill Pollack question was written by Colker. Colker correctly stated that whether or not Edith Rosenkranz preferred her husband's books to Agatha Christie's books as her choice of light reading, this was irrelevant to the ruling of this case under the applicable 1987 Lawbook. But if this case had been heard today, under Adam Wildavsky's American translation of the 2008 Lawbook, then Edith's choice of light reading would have been pivotal to the case, since it is now stated in Law 40A1(a): "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 15 09:06:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:06:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3ED89854-393E-4AB0-B271-E6D9EC174E1F@starpower.net> Message-ID: >>Goldman: "I believe that this appeal had a >>great deal of merit, and that if E/W had >>been of lesser stature a different decision >>might have occurred." >> >>Kokish and/or Colker asked: >> >> Do you really think that this Committee had >>"stars" in their eyes, Goldie? Eric Landau: >I can't speak definitively for the late Mr. Goldman, but >I'm confident his answer would be, Yes, absolutely. Richard Hills: I can't speak definitively for the ABF, but I'm confident the Aussie answer would be, "No, definitely not." Eric Landau: >I once brought an appeal against a big-name expert pair, >after they had described their 4NT call, in reply to an >inquiry, as "Blackwood", having neglected to mention that >their actual agreement was 14-30 RKCB, and, assuming >"Blackwood" to mean "ordinary Blackwood", I had misdefended >after miscounting their aces. On the advice of the >screening director, a personal friend, I withdrew the >appeal for fear of losing my $50 deposit (a rather >significant amount at the time) -- Richard Hills: Many years ago, when I was a small-name youth player, I brought an appeal against a big-name expert pair, and put up a $50 deposit (a rather significant amount for me at the time, since I was then an invalid pensioner). The very first thing the Chair of the Appeals Committee, Sydney expert (and later non-playing captain of the Australian Open Team at the 2007 Beijing Bermuda Bowl) David Stern, did at the start of the hearing was to return my deposit, since my appeal had prima facie merit, and since my second-hand clothes made my financial nervousness obvious. The actual basis of my appeal was then impartially assessed, and, as luck would have it, my team won the appeal against the big-name expert team for an improved adjusted score. Eric Landau: >the details of the thread case, I submit, justify my >concern. Word got around, and Mr. Goldman, a say-hello >acquaintance but not someone I would normally converse with, >sought me out to offer consolation and explain the facts of >life in the ACBL, namely that had the big-name pair been on >the other side of the ruling, it would still have been up to >me to appeal. He regretted that he had not arrived in time >to put up the deposit himself and appear on my behalf before >the AC. I got the very definite impression that the pro- >expert bias of ACBL TDs and ACs (of which he was surely a >beneficiary!) was something he was knowledgeable about and >deplored. Richard Hills: It is possible that wider cultural factors may be at work. In Oz, the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" is part of our culture; the more successful a person is, the more other Aussies delight in cutting down the tall poppy. So, at least at the national level, ABF Directors and ABF Appeals Committees have had no qualms about indulging in tall poppy pulping. On the other hand, over the past century, it seems to me that Yankees have revered their President no matter who he or she may be. In other cultures President Nixon would have been turfed out of office in April 1973, but the semi-mystical reverence for The Office of The President allowed Tricky Dick to twist in the wind until August 1974. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri May 15 09:54:05 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:54:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <3ED89854-393E-4AB0-B271-E6D9EC174E1F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200905150754.n4F7sIBD028769@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> > >Richard Hills: > >It is possible that wider cultural factors may be at work. > >In Oz, the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" is part of our culture; the >more successful a person is, the more other Aussies delight >in cutting down the tall poppy. So, at least at the national >level, ABF Directors and ABF Appeals Committees have had no >qualms about indulging in tall poppy pulping. > >On the other hand, over the past century, it seems to me that >Yankees have revered their President no matter who he or she >may be. In other cultures President Nixon would have been >turfed out of office in April 1973, but the semi-mystical >reverence for The Office of The President allowed Tricky Dick >to twist in the wind until August 1974. > At least in US, they have a resident as president Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From karel at esatclear.ie Fri May 15 10:35:56 2009 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:35:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable In-Reply-To: <35A08F2DF9C94B158247D18A3442FBE2@JOHN> References: <530453.68221.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0294DC42-44F7-4A1C-A697-1173002FBF56@starpower.net> <35A08F2DF9C94B158247D18A3442FBE2@JOHN> Message-ID: In previous post I did say from a purely technical point of view running the 8 has zero chance of success. As John has pointed out though a smooth immediate C8 will often not get a cover as happened as east *must* have the King (tbh a few seconds of thought by west should make him realise covering can never hurt). Regardless while one might consider the C8 when making your plan of action it should be discarded immediately as (a) unnessary (b) a line which cant win. To actually put it into action (assuming declarer isnt suicidal) requires a degree of certainty about the distribution which one simply cannot have .... unless ..... Btw if you are playing east for a singleton club, then the chance of a singleton C Q or J with east is a legitimate plan. You play 3 rounds of trumps, club to K and finesse on the way back. What is so unusal and I cant get over is why declarer would at trick 4 WITHOUT verifying whether its even necessary, play for the one distribution that he cannot make the contract on (ie) play precisely for a 5/1 club split both honours onside and a defensive error? Makes no sense .... unless you were absolutely sure that was the layout of the cards. The C8 at trick 4 maybe a bad play (it removes the chance of CQ/CJ with east singleton) but it isnt terminal. We have all made plays which are sub par, but you can recover, re consider your plan and options. Here when the C8 is not covered you can (a) play for QJx(xx) on side and a defensive error (no idea what the odds are but low, real low) OR you can rise with the ace, cash 2 diamonds and play a club to the king which ONLY loses if the clubs are 5/1 and the diamonds 3/1 AND the guy ruffs (a huge favourite statistically). The other point no one has even mentioned is this. Why is it even necessary to make the contract? It isnt !! If you play for a 5/1 club split the opps are cold for 4S and certainly 3S (140). You werent doubled so -100 will be a top. If the the clubs are 4/2 (and by extnsion the diamonds 2/2 or clubs 3/1 in which case a ruff is available), NOW the opps are not making 3S and now you need to make 4D, so declarers line is again totally illogical ... unless .... Btw I'm not saying that the defenders dont deserve a bad score for not covering the 8. What I am saying is they should have a right to question such an amazing play subsequent to an anti percentage auction. I like the idea of being able to question a persons action. Some posters have suggested asking the player to explain their actions and based on their responses make a ruling. I think this or similar should be explicitly included in the laws. If the law makers are scared of possible law suits for "accusations of cheating" its very simple to get around. Every game has a set of rules which players agree to abide by. If some fictious game has a rule which says one player can kill the other then anyone entering this game will abide by that rule. If you dont like the rules then dont play!. Tbh such a rule would be beneficial as it probably would reduce dubious actions (dare I use the words suspected unproveable cheating) as these actions could be reversed. As for Hirsch's statement we are most likely dealing with sheer incompetence - normally I'd agree, but no one - not a single person (various degrees of skill) I have shown this hand to and asked to play even considered running the C8 at trick 4. They couldn't comprehend how it could win. Even when shown all 4 hands it took quite a few of them awhile to understand how it could work - which would seem to indicate our declarer was well above average level which makes his actions all the more questionable. K. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 15 11:21:35 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:21:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <2E893F0A-BE92-43B4-AF09-A905E76F2D7B@starpower.net> References: <2E893F0A-BE92-43B4-AF09-A905E76F2D7B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A0D341F.3000405@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Where Riichard and I disagree is over what constitutes "a > hypothetical sufficient bid with a parallel meaning". I start from > the premise that the IBer thought he was making a sufficient bid. So > whatever he thought 4S meant, it was the same as the meaning of a 4S > bid in some other auction, not the same as a 5S bid on this one. > What Alain calls the "'basic' situation" is simply an additional > possiblity not to be overlooked, but it may not be in any way > relevant -- why should the oppos be assumed to have *any* 5S bid that > has the same meaning as *any* 4S bid, much less these particular > ones? Whether it is even a possible consideration is a function of > the opponents' agreements, not yours. > > Because the IBer intended 4S to mean whatever it would have meant in > whatever he thought the auction was, "a hypothetical sufficient bid > with a parallel meaning" to the insufficient 4S bid must exist. But > that "hypothetical sufficient bid" that must exist can only be a > *sufficient* 4S bid, not some other call entirely. So I'm sticking > to my "which one?" argument above. > And even more : it has been said here that the replacement 5S bid should be considered as a non-after-IB 5S bid and your agreements shouldn't change. But who says a "forced" 5S bid, when you wanted to bid only 4, is the same as a normal 5S bid ? The situation at the table is obviously different, so I still don't see what "the same bidding" would be. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 15 11:59:55 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:59:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A0BF7F0.9030605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003401c9d552$b0771ac0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Alain ............................ \x/ ............................................................... PS : about the will to criticize : one of Belgium's best-considerd TDs told me last night that 'I need a course about ethics' because I don't see the need to alert a 1-of-a-minor opening within a (pre-alerted) weak NT framework. Can't it be as short when playing strong NTs ? BTA the plaintiff was his usual partner. < +=+ What do the regulations say? See CoP statement on 'Ethics'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 15 13:45:45 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:45:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day References: <2E893F0A-BE92-43B4-AF09-A905E76F2D7B@starpower.net> <4A0D341F.3000405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003501c9d552$b0a46c50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Groundhog Day And even more : it has been said here that the replacement 5S bid should be considered as a non-after-IB 5S bid and your agreements shouldn't change. But who says a "forced" 5S bid, when you wanted to bid only 4, is the same as a normal 5S bid ? The situation at the table is obviously different, so I still don't see what "the same bidding" would be. +=+ I think that statements such as these should be tied to the law in question and to the relevant WBF Laws Committee minute. I have in mind that Law 27B1(b) does not refer to 'the same bidding' but to 'the same meaning or a more precise meaning' and that there has been some relaxation of the interpretation of this by WBF Laws Committee edict. So could we perhaps clarify what is the nature of the argument? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri May 15 14:03:36 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 13:03:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Questionable action explainable [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A0D5A18.1000006@talktalk.net> [Richard.Hills] On the other hand, over the past century, it seems to me that Yankees have revered their President no matter who he or she may be. In other cultures President Nixon would have been turfed out of office in April 1973, but the semi-mystical reverence for The Office of The President allowed Tricky Dick to twist in the wind until August 1974. [Nigel] The Watergate scandal would probably not have seen the light of day had it happened in the UK. We are still protected against the shock of revelation about high level shenanigans :) - Data protection act. - Commercial confidentiality. - Self-censorship by media barons in cahoots with Government. - Privacy laws. - Defamation laws without "public interest" dispensation. - Official secrets act. - D-notices. - Public interest immunity certificates. - Tradition of promoting and ennobling those "smeared"; while prosecuting whistle-blowers and rendering them unemployable; For example, our government promised to publish MP expense claims. Duped by recent government commitments to transparency, the Telegraph newspaper prematurely released excepts, showing wide abuse of lax rules. The speaker of the house is concerned mainly with finding and prosecuting the mole ... From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 15 14:47:35 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:47:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003401c9d552$b0771ac0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A0BF7F0.9030605@ulb.ac.be> <003401c9d552$b0771ac0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A0D6467.30406@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:52 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Alain > ............................ \x/ > ............................................................... > PS : about the will to criticize : one of Belgium's best-considerd TDs > told me last night that 'I need a course about ethics' because I don't > see the need to alert a 1-of-a-minor opening within a (pre-alerted) weak > NT framework. Can't it be as short when playing strong NTs ? BTA the > plaintiff was his usual partner. > < > +=+ What do the regulations say? They say that neither 'best minor' (3+ cards, not longer that the other) neither the prepared club for those playing '4-card diamonds' (2 cards but only if 4432 in that order) should be alerted. If you open 1C on all balanced hands within some range (i.e. even with 4D+2C) then it is alertable - but this wasn't the case. The real problem isn't that the TD didn't know everything about alert regulations (that's a fault, but a minor one) ; it's how he considered things : even if his version of the regulations was correct, not knowing I had to alert shouldn't automatically be considered as a breach of ethics. He was in a 'they all c***t' mode, and that's a big sin for a TD. Of course, when I challenged him after the tournament to find the place where it is said that 1C was alertable in this case, he wasn't able to find it. So the ruling didn't cause any problem ; only his attitude did. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 15 20:22:04 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:22:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <4A0D341F.3000405@ulb.ac.be> References: <2E893F0A-BE92-43B4-AF09-A905E76F2D7B@starpower.net> <4A0D341F.3000405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <17FA6D3D-27C4-4A20-8FE8-EA3D85D9C052@starpower.net> On May 15, 2009, at 5:21 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Where Riichard and I disagree is over what constitutes "a >> hypothetical sufficient bid with a parallel meaning". I start from >> the premise that the IBer thought he was making a sufficient bid. So >> whatever he thought 4S meant, it was the same as the meaning of a 4S >> bid in some other auction, not the same as a 5S bid on this one. >> What Alain calls the "'basic' situation" is simply an additional >> possiblity not to be overlooked, but it may not be in any way >> relevant -- why should the oppos be assumed to have *any* 5S bid that >> has the same meaning as *any* 4S bid, much less these particular >> ones? Whether it is even a possible consideration is a function of >> the opponents' agreements, not yours. >> >> Because the IBer intended 4S to mean whatever it would have meant in >> whatever he thought the auction was, "a hypothetical sufficient bid >> with a parallel meaning" to the insufficient 4S bid must exist. But >> that "hypothetical sufficient bid" that must exist can only be a >> *sufficient* 4S bid, not some other call entirely. So I'm sticking >> to my "which one?" argument above. > > And even more : it has been said here that the replacement 5S bid > should > be considered as a non-after-IB 5S bid and your agreements shouldn't > change. > > But who says a "forced" 5S bid, when you wanted to bid only 4, is the > same as a normal 5S bid ? The situation at the table is obviously > different, so I still don't see what "the same bidding" would be. Yes, this would suggest that we cannot accept even Steve's interpretation here, much less Richard's. By their reading, 1C-5D-4S (rejected),5S-X and 1C-5D-5S-X should have the identical meaning. But as Alain points out, the 5S bids on those auctions are very different. Does it really make sense to constrain the NOS to a fixed meaning of their double, regardless of the meaning of the OS's bid being doubled? Aren't they entitled to "know" that the IBer tried to bid 4S originally? Does the law really say that the OS is unpenalized in this situation but the NOS has to treat the fact that there was an IB as UI? Isn't that imposing constraints on the wrong side? Agreeing to treat the double of 5S after 5D differently depending on whether or not it was a correction of an insufficient 4S bid is no more "varying your agreements" than is agreeing to treat 1C-2S-X differently depending on whether 2S is strong or weak. The meaning of the bid you're doubling is as much a part of conditions under which your agreement applies as is the auction itself. Moreover, when the auction goes 1C-5D-4S(rejected),5S-X, you know that partner could have accepted 4S and doubled that. So you must be allowed to consider its implications, which are likely to affect the meaning of 5S. Requiring that double carry the same meaning at it would on 1C-5D-5S-X is saying either that the IB is UI, or that the fact that partner could have accepted it is UI. I don't think the law supports either of those. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 15 20:31:53 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:31:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <003501c9d552$b0a46c50$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <2E893F0A-BE92-43B4-AF09-A905E76F2D7B@starpower.net> <4A0D341F.3000405@ulb.ac.be> <003501c9d552$b0a46c50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <1FE2F426-4996-4CA6-A033-AAE45003907C@starpower.net> On May 15, 2009, at 7:45 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > And even more : it has been said here that the replacement 5S bid > should be considered as a non-after-IB 5S bid and your agreements > shouldn't change. > > But who says a "forced" 5S bid, when you wanted to bid only 4, is > the same as a normal 5S bid ? The situation at the table is obviously > different, so I still don't see what "the same bidding" would be. > > +=+ I think that statements such as these should be tied to the law in > question and to the relevant WBF Laws Committee minute. I have > in mind that Law 27B1(b) does not refer to 'the same bidding' but to > 'the same meaning or a more precise meaning' and that there has > been some relaxation of the interpretation of this by WBF Laws > Committee edict. So could we perhaps clarify what is the nature of > the argument? The argument is over the interpretation of L40B3, which, by ACBL election, "disallow[s]... a partnership to vary its understandings... following... any irregularity". (1) Does that mean that a partnership must interpret a double in the auction 1C-5D-4S(rejected),5S-X as having exactly the same meaning as in the auction 1C-5D-5S-X? (2) Does that mean that a partnership must interpret a double in the auction 1C-5D-4S(accepted)-X as having exactly the same meaning as in some other auction? If so, what other auction? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 16 19:48:36 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 13:48:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A day at the races (alerting natural bids) In-Reply-To: <96516D839FEB4B11B426C87026A090A0@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8BEF2B39-A79F-4D94-9011-B2B80A768F25@starpower.net> <96516D839FEB4B11B426C87026A090A0@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:46:37 -0400, Marvin L French wrote: > > From: "Eric Landau" > >> The ACBL, although it has officially rejected it as doctrine, >> continues to be infected by the counter-productive idea that any >> given call should have exactly one non-alertable meaning. >> >> The mass of bridge players that joined the ACBL after World War II >> (taking the ACBL to membership heights it can only be nostalgic >> about >> today) overwhelmingly employed the Goren System (then called >> "standard American"), which was first published in its essential >> form >> in 1949. > > Yes, you could see games being played by both sexes all over the > lawns at colleges. Everyone played about the same system, so > partnerships were easily formed and changed. Bridge was much more > easier to learn then. When conventions began to proliferate in > duplicate games, players quit the ACBL in great numbers. The game > was more fun before that, much more popular, so how can the > scientists claim they have improved the game? > > When the ACBL introduced alerts, and for decades >> thereafter, they were very careful to insure that anyone who >> continued to bid as pretty much everyone did in the '50s would not >> be >> required to alert any of their calls. But that generation began >> to >> die out, the objections to having to alert things that "everyone >> but >> the LOLs" played (like negative doubles) became too clamorous to >> ignore, and the "only-one-alertable-meaning" crowd, once negative >> doubles became not alertable, eventually got their way and made >> penalty doubles alertable. Strong two-bids and other basic >> elements >> of standard Goren followed. Four-card major openings are likely >> to >> be next on the block. > > I'm afraid so, even though I show them plainly under "General > Approach." Also, they are likely to require an Alert of my possible > bypass of a very weak major suit in favor of a notrump bid that > describes my hand better. > > It was distressing to me as one-by-one my natural calls became > Alertable: Penalty doubles of overcalls, strong jump overcalls, and > natural 3NT openings based on a solid minor suit plus stoppers > outside. > > Others (which I don't play anymore) are natural 2D, 2H, or 2S > responses to a 1NT opening that are not signoffs. Goren-like > responses (not forcing, but not signoffs) are Alertable now. I don't > understand why signoffs need not be Alerted, but understanding all > of the Alert Procedure is a futile undertaking. > > In 2002 the ACBL issued revised Alert regulations aimed at > simplifying them. Humph! I was hard put to fit them onto two pages, > and there is nothing simple about them. To see my effort in the form > of a pdf file, look in my Web site under Bridge Laws and > Regulations. To try to respond to everyone... Great information, Eric. Thanks. So the ACBL doesn't really care about my mother. And they rightly shouldn't. She plays duplicate, but not in ACBL games, and that isn't going to change. I am not overly sympathetic to Marvin's complaints. He knows when his bids are unexpected and should be happy to alert. Except I agree with the part about not trying to understand all of the ACBL's alert procedure. It does seem to change often and as a player I never tried to keep up with the changes. Grattan wrote: "Do I understand that the alerting regulations predicate that in the given situation an unnatural bid is natural?" I am not sure what you mean. Her 2NT overcall of 1NT was natural, not conventional. But with any reasonable level of expertise, it is abnormal and unexpected. At the club where I work, bids with unexpected meanings have to be alerted. That leaves out the question, unexpected to who? Both the director and club owner thought that a natural 2NT overcall of 1NT needed to be alerted. This is still a problem, because these are players the ACBL wants to encourage. To give another example, 1S - 2C (overcall) - 3C. Does this need to be alerted if it shows clubs? For the ACBL, this bid apparently falls into the general bin of "Natural Calls Not Specifically Noted". If they are about the expected strength and shape, they don't have to be alerted. Of course, that seems to presume that the opponents know it is natural. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 16 20:18:34 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 14:18:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A day at the races continuation (Law 27] In-Reply-To: <001c01c9d47e$5757f600$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001c01c9d47e$5757f600$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: I am just now realizing that the next bid in the auction might be intriguing, in a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin sort of way. 1NT P P 2NT(1) P 2D(2) (1) Natural (2) announced as transfer. Director took her aside and was told she intended the 2D bid to be a transfer show spades. She just misbid. However, it was not a mispull, it was an error in thought. The director ruled, I think correctly, that she could correct to 3D without barring her partner. The thing is, if she meant her bid to show spades, then why could she correct to a bid with a different meaning? Or, if she meant her bid to show spades, why isn't 3H now a nonbarring correction? I conclude: The issue for nonbarring purposes probably isn't the intended meaning of the bid, it's the meaning of the intended bid. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun May 17 02:44:49 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 16:44:49 -0800 Subject: [BLML] A day at the races (alerting natural bids) References: <8BEF2B39-A79F-4D94-9011-B2B80A768F25@starpower.net><96516D839FEB4B11B426C87026A090A0@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: From: "Robert Frick" > He knows when his bids > are unexpected and should be happy to alert. Didn't mean to complain, and I happily Alert my natural calls that became uncommon. It's just a shame that these superior treatments became uncommon. :) > Except I agree with the part > about not trying to understand all of the ACBL's alert procedure. > It does > seem to change often and as a player I never tried to keep up with > the > changes. That is an excuse I often hear, a cover-up for laziness. The Alert Procedure has not changed since early 2002. Players will learn a zillion arcane meanings associated with a myriad of conventions, yet claim they cannot learn an Alert Procedure that takes up less than two pages in my pdf file. As the majority of rules do not apply to a typical partnership and those that do apply can be extracted or highlighted for remembering, being ignorant of them is pathetic. > > > At the club where I work, bids with unexpected meanings have to be > alerted. That leaves out the question, unexpected to who? Both the > director and club owner thought that a natural 2NT overcall of 1NT > needed > to be alerted. By whom. Of course calls whose meaning may be unexpected by the opponents at the table should be Alerted. Not calls that nearly everyone should understand, unless specifically required by the Alert Procedure. > > This is still a problem, because these are players the ACBL wants > to > encourage. To give another example, 1S - 2C (overcall) - 3C. Does > this > need to be alerted if it shows clubs? Of course. Would anyone really do this?? It's very unusual. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun May 17 04:36:16 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 18:36:16 -0800 Subject: [BLML] 2008 Boston non-NABC+ Three [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000201c9c8c4$86c82a60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: From: "Grattan" >> >> +=+ I disagree with the suggestion that this is a value (1) >> judgement. The question is one of fact. The standard >> of proof required under Law 70C2 is high, indeed >> I would say absolute since minimal doubt establishes >> some degree of likelihood and the law says that the >> opponents *shall* then be awarded a trick or tricks. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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. However, ACBL TDs seem to have an unstated guideline* that says the claimer must ruff low if he makes that statement before ruffing. If the ruff is successful, trumps are assumed led from the top. These two policies seem sensible and consistent, easily remembered. Does Grattan or Richard have a problem with them? *A local ACBL TD says they have no such guideline. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 18 15:02:03 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:02:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A day at the races continuation (Law 27] In-Reply-To: References: <001c01c9d47e$5757f600$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On May 16, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I am just now realizing that the next bid in the auction might be > intriguing, in a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin > sort of > way. > > 1NT P P 2NT(1) > P 2D(2) > > (1) Natural > (2) announced as transfer. > > Director took her aside and was told she intended the 2D bid to be a > transfer show spades. She just misbid. However, it was not a > mispull, it > was an error in thought. The director ruled, I think correctly, > that she > could correct to 3D without barring her partner. > > The thing is, if she meant her bid to show spades, then why could she > correct to a bid with a different meaning? Or, if she meant her bid to > show spades, why isn't 3H now a nonbarring correction? > > I conclude: The issue for nonbarring purposes probably isn't the > intended > meaning of the bid, it's the meaning of the intended bid. If it was actually the case that 2D would have shown spades (presumably any strength) in the auction the IBer thought had occured, and that 3H would have the same meaning on the actual auction, then 3D should not have been allowed (L27B1(a) requires that the IB be "incontrovertably not artificial"), but 3H should be (L27B1 (b) is satisfied if it "has the same meaning as or a more precise meaning than the IB"). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 18 15:44:28 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:44:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A day at the races continuation (Law 27] In-Reply-To: References: <001c01c9d47e$5757f600$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A11663C.3060503@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On May 16, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > >> I am just now realizing that the next bid in the auction might be >> intriguing, in a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin >> sort of >> way. >> >> 1NT P P 2NT(1) >> P 2D(2) >> >> (1) Natural >> (2) announced as transfer. >> >> Director took her aside and was told she intended the 2D bid to be a >> transfer show spades. She just misbid. However, it was not a >> mispull, it >> was an error in thought. The director ruled, I think correctly, >> that she >> could correct to 3D without barring her partner. >> >> The thing is, if she meant her bid to show spades, then why could she >> correct to a bid with a different meaning? Or, if she meant her bid to >> show spades, why isn't 3H now a nonbarring correction? >> >> I conclude: The issue for nonbarring purposes probably isn't the >> intended >> meaning of the bid, it's the meaning of the intended bid. >> > > If it was actually the case that 2D would have shown spades > (presumably any strength) in the auction the IBer thought had > occured, and that 3H would have the same meaning on the actual > auction, then 3D should not have been allowed (L27B1(a) requires that > the IB be "incontrovertably not artificial"), but 3H should be (L27B1 > (b) is satisfied if it "has the same meaning as or a more precise > meaning than the IB"). > > An interesting similar question arose recently : 2NT (20-22) 2S The player saw a 1NT (11-13) opening, and answered a S/O 2S. When told that the opening was actually 2NT, h e wanted to answer 3H (Transfer). Theoretically, this would be diasallowed, because opener knows from the attempted 2S bid that partner doesn't hold more that 10-11 HCP. So the 3H bid is namely a bit less precise. The feeling of all TDs who were asked about this said that the information was floccipaucinihilipilificable (well, not everybody said it that way ;-) so that 3H could be allowed. (and of course it should be allowed by PH) I'm in favor of that principle : when added information is very likely to be of no effect at all, you might as well try to save the board. Why not leave the assessment of this likeliness to the TD ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 18 17:30:44 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:30:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A day at the races continuation (Law 27] In-Reply-To: <4A11663C.3060503@ulb.ac.be> References: <001c01c9d47e$5757f600$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A11663C.3060503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <83548809-0D85-45D1-A7F7-2FBBB0D09AE6@starpower.net> On May 18, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> On May 16, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> I am just now realizing that the next bid in the auction might be >>> intriguing, in a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin >>> sort of >>> way. >>> >>> 1NT P P 2NT(1) >>> P 2D(2) >>> >>> (1) Natural >>> (2) announced as transfer. >>> >>> Director took her aside and was told she intended the 2D bid to be a >>> transfer show spades. She just misbid. However, it was not a >>> mispull, it >>> was an error in thought. The director ruled, I think correctly, >>> that she >>> could correct to 3D without barring her partner. >>> >>> The thing is, if she meant her bid to show spades, then why could >>> she >>> correct to a bid with a different meaning? Or, if she meant her >>> bid to >>> show spades, why isn't 3H now a nonbarring correction? >>> >>> I conclude: The issue for nonbarring purposes probably isn't the >>> intended >>> meaning of the bid, it's the meaning of the intended bid. >> >> If it was actually the case that 2D would have shown spades >> (presumably any strength) in the auction the IBer thought had >> occured, and that 3H would have the same meaning on the actual >> auction, then 3D should not have been allowed (L27B1(a) requires that >> the IB be "incontrovertably not artificial"), but 3H should be (L27B1 >> (b) is satisfied if it "has the same meaning as or a more precise >> meaning than the IB"). > > An interesting similar question arose recently : > > 2NT (20-22) 2S > > The player saw a 1NT (11-13) opening, and answered a S/O 2S. When told > that the opening was actually 2NT, h e wanted to answer 3H (Transfer). > > Theoretically, this would be diasallowed, because opener knows from > the > attempted 2S bid that partner doesn't hold more that 10-11 HCP. So > the > 3H bid is namely a bit less precise. > The feeling of all TDs who were asked about this said that the > information was floccipaucinihilipilificable (well, not everybody said > it that way ;-) so that 3H could be allowed. > (and of course it should be allowed by PH) > > I'm in favor of that principle : when added information is very likely > to be of no effect at all, you might as well try to save the board. > Why > not leave the assessment of this likeliness to the TD ? Indeed, it seems clear that L27B1(b), read literally, would not permit 3H without penalty because it is unlimited. But we would like to allow it in this particular case, because we know that the IBer's *next* call will limit his hand, completing a description that would meet the "same... or more precise meaning" criterion of L27B1(b). The general situation is one in which you have an agreed sequence available that meets the criterion of L27B1(b) except for the fact that it requires an artificial relay or puppet bid followed by a descriptive rebid (e.g. a conventional "two-step"). One could interpret L27B1(b) as covering such cases, but it's a pretty long stretch. Of course the WBFLC could effect it by issuing one of its infamous minutes. The complicating factor is that it would require some way of dealing with the possibility that opposition bidding could prevent the completion of the two-step sequence. An official interpretation that would permit what I will call the "L27B1(b) two-step" would have to deal with this. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 20 00:17:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 23:17:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A day at the races continuation (Law 27] References: <001c01c9d47e$5757f600$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A11663C.3060503@ulb.ac.be> <83548809-0D85-45D1-A7F7-2FBBB0D09AE6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c9d8e6$02ee0200$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A day at the races continuation (Law 27] On May 18, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> On May 16, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> I am just now realizing that the next bid in the auction might be >>> intriguing, in a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin >>> sort of >>> way. >>> >>> 1NT P P 2NT(1) >>> P 2D(2) >>> >>> (1) Natural >>> (2) announced as transfer. >>> >>> Director took her aside and was told she intended the 2D bid to be a >>> transfer show spades. She just misbid. However, it was not a >>> mispull, it >>> was an error in thought. The director ruled, I think correctly, >>> that she >>> could correct to 3D without barring her partner. >>> >>> The thing is, if she meant her bid to show spades, then why could >>> she >>> correct to a bid with a different meaning? Or, if she meant her >>> bid to >>> show spades, why isn't 3H now a nonbarring correction? >>> >>> I conclude: The issue for nonbarring purposes probably isn't the >>> intended >>> meaning of the bid, it's the meaning of the intended bid. >> >> If it was actually the case that 2D would have shown spades >> (presumably any strength) in the auction the IBer thought had >> occured, and that 3H would have the same meaning on the actual >> auction, then 3D should not have been allowed (L27B1(a) requires that >> the IB be "incontrovertably not artificial"), but 3H should be (L27B1 >> (b) is satisfied if it "has the same meaning as or a more precise >> meaning than the IB"). > > An interesting similar question arose recently : > > 2NT (20-22) 2S > > The player saw a 1NT (11-13) opening, and answered a S/O 2S. When told > that the opening was actually 2NT, h e wanted to answer 3H (Transfer). > > Theoretically, this would be diasallowed, because opener knows from > the > attempted 2S bid that partner doesn't hold more that 10-11 HCP. So > the > 3H bid is namely a bit less precise. > The feeling of all TDs who were asked about this said that the > information was floccipaucinihilipilificable (well, not everybody said > it that way ;-) so that 3H could be allowed. > (and of course it should be allowed by PH) > > I'm in favor of that principle : when added information is very likely > to be of no effect at all, you might as well try to save the board. > Why > not leave the assessment of this likeliness to the TD ? Indeed, it seems clear that L27B1(b), read literally, would not permit 3H without penalty because it is unlimited. But we would like to allow it in this particular case, because we know that the IBer's *next* call will limit his hand, completing a description that would meet the "same... or more precise meaning" criterion of L27B1(b). The general situation is one in which you have an agreed sequence available that meets the criterion of L27B1(b) except for the fact that it requires an artificial relay or puppet bid followed by a descriptive rebid (e.g. a conventional "two-step"). One could interpret L27B1(b) as covering such cases, but it's a pretty long stretch. Of course the WBFLC could effect it by issuing one of its infamous minutes. The complicating factor is that it would require some way of dealing with the possibility that opposition bidding could prevent the completion of the two-step sequence. An official interpretation that would permit what I will call the "L27B1(b) two-step" would have to deal with this. 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 20 10:12:31 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:12:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. Message-ID: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A13E4DD.5010902@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > On 19th May the EBU L&E Committee looked at four examples > of possible applications of Law 27B1(b) in the light of the WBF > minute stretching the interpretation of this Law. Brief details follow > and when available the EBU minute of the discussion should be > consulted. The problem with this law is to find words which cross > the boundaries of bridge cultures in the various Zones and NBOs. > This may perhaps be most successfully done by publicising any > examples (from wherever) as they occur. > > Example 1: (agreed) : 1C - 1S - 1H (not having seen the overcall) > replaced with 'double' > The double shows 5+ HCP and four Hearts. AG : or perhaps it shows 7+. No problem as it is a subset of the IB's meaning. > The stretch is that a hand > with (say) four Hearts and five Diamonds would have responded 1D > had there been no overcall but would double after the overcall. The > stretching of the law means that the Director need not delve into these > negative inferences. > AG : notice that, with the modern Walsh tendency (bid H before D if holding fewer than 12 HCP), the inference is even smaller. > Example 2 (agreed) : 1NT - 2S - 2D (not having seen the overcall. > replaced with 3H - natural and forcing. > The stretch is that game forcing hands with four Hearts AG : I guess you mean 5H and 4S. > would have > responded 2C (Stayman) had there been no overcall. Partner has the > additional information that the infractor's hand does not have four Spades. > Again the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of negative inference. > > Example 3 (agreed) : 1C (Precision) - 1S - 1D (overcall not seen) > replaced with 'double' showing 5-7 HCP. > The stretch is that without the overcall 1D is 0-7 HCP. AG : no problem with that ; it goes the right way : replacing bid more restrictive. > However, > hands in the 5-7 range with a six card major would have responded > 2H/2S had there been no overcall but are constrained to double > after the overcall. Partner has additional information about the major > suits in consequence.. > AG : IMHO this case is at the limit. Several hands are excluded by the attempted 1D response (KQxxxx in either minor, perhaps), and above all the inferences about 1C (1S) X p 2C p 2H aren't negligible. > Example 4 (rejected): 2NT - P - 2C > Responder thinks partner has bid 1NT and > his 2C is Stayman. He has 3C available > which is also Stayman. A liberal approach > will allow this change. > The stretch is that there are some hands that would use 3C Stayman > that would not have used 2C Stayman. Also, 3C might be 5-card > major Stayman. AG : the first fact is important ; but the second one is irrelevant. The meaning of the bid is the key ; not the way one responds. > The Committee took the view that the amount of > information available stepped over the line - was too much. > > [On a personal note, I find myself having to work my mind around the > failure to agree the fourth example. I will wish to absorb what difference > of degree the Committee sees in it.] > > Summary: The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls > and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has the same > basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already fully incorporated > within, the original call. AG : suits me fine; Best regards Alain From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed May 20 13:38:21 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 21:38:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <200905201138.n4KBcViC006399@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 06:12 PM 20/05/2009, you wrote: >Grattan Endicottalso ********************************** >"When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >On 19th May the EBU L&E Committee looked at four examples >of possible applications of Law 27B1(b) in the light of the WBF >minute stretching the interpretation of this Law. Brief details follow >and when available the EBU minute of the discussion should be >consulted. The problem with this law is to find words which cross >the boundaries of bridge cultures in the various Zones and NBOs. >This may perhaps be most successfully done by publicising any >examples (from wherever) as they occur. > >Example 1: (agreed) : 1C - 1S - 1H (not having seen the overcall) > replaced with 'double' >The double shows 5+ HCP and four Hearts. The stretch is that a hand >with (say) four Hearts and five Diamonds would have responded 1D >had there been no overcall but would double after the overcall. The >stretching of the law means that the Director need not delve into these >negative inferences. > >Example 2 (agreed) : 1NT - 2S - 2D (not having seen the overcall. > replaced with 3H - natural and forcing. >The stretch is that game forcing hands with four Hearts would have >responded 2C (Stayman) had there been no overcall. Partner has the >additional information that the infractor's hand does not have four Spades. >Again the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of negative inference. > >Example 3 (agreed) : 1C (Precision) - 1S - 1D (overcall not seen) > replaced with 'double' showing 5-7 HCP. >The stretch is that without the overcall 1D is 0-7 HCP. However, >hands in the 5-7 range with a six card major would have responded >2H/2S had there been no overcall but are constrained to double >after the overcall. Partner has additional information about the major >suits in consequence.. > >Example 4 (rejected): 2NT - P - 2C > Responder thinks partner has bid 1NT and > his 2C is Stayman. He has 3C available > which is also Stayman. A liberal approach > will allow this change. >The stretch is that there are some hands that would use 3C Stayman >that would not have used 2C Stayman. Also, 3C might be 5-card >major Stayman. The Committee took the view that the amount of >information available stepped over the line - was too much. > >[On a personal note, I find myself having to work my mind around the >failure to agree the fourth example. I will wish to absorb what difference >of degree the Committee sees in it.] > >Summary: The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls >and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has the same >basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already fully incorporated >within, the original call. He does not need to delve into the multitude of >potential subtle negative inferences that may be available. But the stretch >does not extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for >example in respect of suit length or point range - these are still subject >to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written in the law book. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have always allowed ex.4. I don't want to know what was intended, I don't want to know if they play extended Stayman, simple Stayman, or puppet stayman. I certainly don't want to look at their hand. I may use 27D to mop up afterwards. So sue me, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed May 20 13:53:22 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:53:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A13EF32.5040108@talktalk.net> [Grattan Endicott] ********************************** "When deciding how much to tell Penelope uses her indiscretion." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 19th May the EBU L&E Committee looked at four examples of possible applications of Law 27B1(b) in the light of the WBF minute stretching the interpretation of this Law. Brief details follow and when available the EBU minute of the discussion should be consulted. The problem with this law is to find words which cross the boundaries of bridge cultures in the various Zones and NBOs. This may perhaps be most successfully done by publicising any examples (from wherever) as they occur. Example 1: (agreed) : 1C - 1S - 1H (not having seen the overcall) replaced with 'double' The double shows 5+ HCP and four Hearts. The stretch is that a hand with (say) four Hearts and five Diamonds would have responded 1D had there been no overcall but would double after the overcall. The stretching of the law means that the Director need not delve into these negative inferences. Example 2 (agreed) : 1NT - 2S - 2D (not having seen the overcall. replaced with 3H - natural and forcing. The stretch is that game forcing hands with four Hearts would have responded 2C (Stayman) had there been no overcall. Partner has the additional information that the infractor's hand does not have four Spades. Again the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of negative inference. Example 3 (agreed) : 1C (Precision) - 1S - 1D (overcall not seen) replaced with 'double' showing 5-7 HCP. The stretch is that without the overcall 1D is 0-7 HCP. However, hands in the 5-7 range with a six card major would have responded 2H/2S had there been no overcall but are constrained to double after the overcall. Partner has additional information about the major suits in consequence.. Example 4 (rejected): 2NT - P - 2C Responder thinks partner has bid 1NT and his 2C is Stayman. He has 3C available which is also Stayman. A liberal approach will allow this change. The stretch is that there are some hands that would use 3C Stayman that would not have used 2C Stayman. Also, 3C might be 5-card major Stayman. The Committee took the view that the amount of information available stepped over the line - was too much. [On a personal note, I find myself having to work my mind around the failure to agree the fourth example. I will wish to absorb what difference of degree the Committee sees in it.] Summary: The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has the same basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already fully incorporated within, the original call. He does not need to delve into the multitude of potential subtle negative inferences that may be available. But the stretch does not extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for example in respect of suit length or point range - these are still subject to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written in the law book. {Nigel] Thank you Grattan. I especially like the last example of a *borderline* decision that disallows a specific change of call. I still, fear, however that 1. Few directors at club level will have time to study the minutes, even if they are notified of their existence. 2. The guidance only scratches the surface of the simplest application of this law. For example.it does not begin to address the problem of interpreting partner's call, depending on the options chosen by him or the other side, especially when there is an implicit agreement. 3. This is just one law. Admittedly a troublesome one. But there are other examples of laws that need clarification. Even with brilliant dedicated directors and the best will in the world, such sophisticated laws will always have too much scope for subjective variation to achieve any degree of consistency. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 20 14:11:31 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:11:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <200905201138.n4KBcViC006399@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905201138.n4KBcViC006399@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4A13F373.2020904@ulb.ac.be> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : >> Example 4 (rejected): 2NT - P - 2C >> Responder thinks partner has bid 1NT and >> his 2C is Stayman. He has 3C available >> which is also Stayman. A liberal approach >> will allow this change. >> The stretch is that there are some hands that would use 3C Stayman >> that would not have used 2C Stayman. Also, 3C might be 5-card >> major Stayman. The Committee took the view that the amount of >> information available stepped over the line - was too much. >> >> [On a personal note, I find myself having to work my mind around the >> failure to agree the fourth example. I will wish to absorb what difference >> of degree the Committee sees in it.] >> >> Summary: The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls >> and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has the same >> basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already fully incorporated >> within, the original call. He does not need to delve into the multitude of >> potential subtle negative inferences that may be available. But the stretch >> does not extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for >> example in respect of suit length or point range - these are still subject >> to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written in the law book. >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > I have always allowed ex.4. I don't want to know what was intended, > I don't want to know if they play extended Stayman, simple Stayman, > or puppet stayman. I certainly don't want to look at their hand. > I may use 27D to mop up afterwards. So sue me, > AG : I don't think they'll have to sue you. After all, 3C asks, rather than tells. If 3C is simple Stayman, I don't see any cases where one would bid 3C but not 2C. Is it the fact that responder has enough to answer a 1NT opening ? Not relevant, as many use "weak Stayman" nowadays. And anyway, who would speak again after 2NT-3C-3H-3NT because they know partner holds 8-9 HCP ??? Even if 3C is Puppet or similar, opener is required to answer his major(s), so that one won't be able to use any UI except in very uncommon cases. Also, notice that many pairs use 2C without holding any major, e.g. to prepare a NT invitation. Grattan, would you please tell us what case of "usable UI" the committe had in mind when disallowing 3C ? Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed May 20 14:20:06 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:20:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <200905201138.n4KBcViC006399@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905201138.n4KBcViC006399@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000901c9d945$4fe5a270$efb0e750$@no> On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove ......................... > >Example 4 (rejected): 2NT - P - 2C > > Responder thinks partner has bid 1NT and > > his 2C is Stayman. He has 3C available > > which is also Stayman. A liberal approach > > will allow this change. > >The stretch is that there are some hands that would use 3C Stayman > >that would not have used 2C Stayman. Also, 3C might be 5-card > >major Stayman. The Committee took the view that the amount of > >information available stepped over the line - was too much. > > > >[On a personal note, I find myself having to work my mind around the > >failure to agree the fourth example. I will wish to absorb what difference > >of degree the Committee sees in it.] > > > >Summary: The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls > >and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has the same > >basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already fully incorporated > >within, the original call. He does not need to delve into the multitude of > >potential subtle negative inferences that may be available. But the stretch > >does not extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for > >example in respect of suit length or point range - these are still subject > >to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written in the law book. > > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I have always allowed ex.4. I don't want to know what was intended, > I don't want to know if they play extended Stayman, simple Stayman, > or puppet stayman. I certainly don't want to look at their hand. > I may use 27D to mop up afterwards. So sue me, I have always rejected ex.4 for the following reason: Stayman usually implies an invitation to game and thus "promises" 25 HCP within the partnership if opener has a maximum. So opposite a 15-17 1NT opening bid 2C shows 8+ HCP while opposite a 20-21 2NT opening bid 3C can be made with only 4 HCP and is therefore "less precise" than the IB. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 20 14:39:23 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:39:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <000901c9d945$4fe5a270$efb0e750$@no> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905201138.n4KBcViC006399@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000901c9d945$4fe5a270$efb0e750$@no> Message-ID: <4A13F9FB.9060608@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > I have always rejected ex.4 for the following reason: > Stayman usually implies an invitation to game and thus "promises" 25 HCP > within the partnership if opener has a maximum. > So opposite a 15-17 1NT opening bid 2C shows 8+ HCP while opposite a 20-21 > 2NT opening bid 3C can be made with only 4 HCP and is therefore "less > precise" than the IB. > AG : but even if 2C is such, what use can opener have from this information ? Excepted in rare competitive sequences, he'll just accpet partner's decision, or act on perfectly legal information (e.g. 2NT-3C-3H-4NT : he now knows partner has about 12 HCP and 4 spades). Contrast with the difference between a 1H opening and a 2D response to 1NT, where the knowledge that partner holds 10+ (or 5+ in the case of an attempted response to 1m) will often be useful in competition. Best regards Alain From jrhind at therock.bm Wed May 20 14:40:41 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:40:41 -0300 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <200905201138.n4KBcViC006399@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: I agree with Tony's assessment/treatment of Example 4. I would tend to allow change in Ex 4 unless there is demonstrably something vastly different between their treatments of 1NT - 2C and 2NT - 3C. No suing Tony :). Jack On 5/20/09 8:38 AM, "Tony Musgrove" wrote: > At 06:12 PM 20/05/2009, you wrote: > > >> Grattan Endicott> also > ********************************** >> "When deciding how much to tell >> Penelope uses her indiscretion." >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> On 19th May the EBU L&E Committee looked at four examples >> of possible applications of Law 27B1(b) in the light of the WBF >> minute stretching the interpretation of this Law. Brief details follow >> and when available the EBU minute of the discussion should be >> consulted. The problem with this law is to find words which cross >> the boundaries of bridge cultures in the various Zones and NBOs. >> This may perhaps be most successfully done by publicising any >> examples (from wherever) as they occur. >> >> Example 1: (agreed) : 1C - 1S - 1H (not having seen the overcall) >> replaced with 'double' >> The double shows 5+ HCP and four Hearts. The stretch is that a hand >> with (say) four Hearts and five Diamonds would have responded 1D >> had there been no overcall but would double after the overcall. The >> stretching of the law means that the Director need not delve into these >> negative inferences. >> >> Example 2 (agreed) : 1NT - 2S - 2D (not having seen the overcall. >> replaced with 3H - natural and forcing. >> The stretch is that game forcing hands with four Hearts would have >> responded 2C (Stayman) had there been no overcall. Partner has the >> additional information that the infractor's hand does not have four Spades. >> Again the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of negative inference. >> >> Example 3 (agreed) : 1C (Precision) - 1S - 1D (overcall not seen) >> replaced with 'double' showing 5-7 HCP. >> The stretch is that without the overcall 1D is 0-7 HCP. However, >> hands in the 5-7 range with a six card major would have responded >> 2H/2S had there been no overcall but are constrained to double >> after the overcall. Partner has additional information about the major >> suits in consequence.. >> >> Example 4 (rejected): 2NT - P - 2C >> Responder thinks partner has bid 1NT and >> his 2C is Stayman. He has 3C available >> which is also Stayman. A liberal approach >> will allow this change. >> The stretch is that there are some hands that would use 3C Stayman >> that would not have used 2C Stayman. Also, 3C might be 5-card >> major Stayman. The Committee took the view that the amount of >> information available stepped over the line - was too much. >> >> [On a personal note, I find myself having to work my mind around the >> failure to agree the fourth example. I will wish to absorb what difference >> of degree the Committee sees in it.] >> >> Summary: The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls >> and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has the same >> basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already fully incorporated >> within, the original call. He does not need to delve into the multitude of >> potential subtle negative inferences that may be available. But the stretch >> does not extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for >> example in respect of suit length or point range - these are still subject >> to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written in the law book. >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I have always allowed ex.4. I don't want to know what was intended, > I don't want to know if they play extended Stayman, simple Stayman, > or puppet stayman. I certainly don't want to look at their hand. > I may use 27D to mop up afterwards. So sue me, > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 20 15:20:59 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:20:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On May 20, 2009, at 4:12 AM, Grattan wrote: > On 19th May the EBU L&E Committee looked at four examples > of possible applications of Law 27B1(b) in the light of the WBF > minute stretching the interpretation of this Law. Brief details follow > and when available the EBU minute of the discussion should be > consulted. The problem with this law is to find words which cross > the boundaries of bridge cultures in the various Zones and NBOs. > This may perhaps be most successfully done by publicising any > examples (from wherever) as they occur. > > Example 1: (agreed) : 1C - 1S - 1H (not having seen the > overcall) > replaced with 'double' > The double shows 5+ HCP and four Hearts. The stretch is that a hand > with (say) four Hearts and five Diamonds would have responded 1D > had there been no overcall but would double after the overcall. The > stretching of the law means that the Director need not delve into > these > negative inferences. > > Example 2 (agreed) : 1NT - 2S - 2D (not having seen the > overcall. > replaced with 3H - natural and > forcing. > The stretch is that game forcing hands with four Hearts would have > responded 2C (Stayman) had there been no overcall. Partner has the > additional information that the infractor's hand does not have four > Spades. > Again the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of negative inference. > > Example 3 (agreed) : 1C (Precision) - 1S - 1D (overcall not seen) > replaced with 'double' showing 5-7 > HCP. > The stretch is that without the overcall 1D is 0-7 HCP. However, > hands in the 5-7 range with a six card major would have responded > 2H/2S had there been no overcall but are constrained to double > after the overcall. Partner has additional information about the major > suits in consequence.. It should be noted that these examples implicitly settle an earlier debate, demonstrating the conclusion towards which that debate was leading: In applying L27B1(b), the TD must take into account the auction that the IBer thought had occured at the point of the IB. It remains an open question whether that information is explicitly shared with the table or the players left to infer it from the ruling. > Example 4 (rejected): 2NT - P - 2C > Responder thinks partner has bid > 1NT and > his 2C is Stayman. He has 3C > available > which is also Stayman. A liberal > approach > will allow this change. > The stretch is that there are some hands that would use 3C Stayman > that would not have used 2C Stayman. Also, 3C might be 5-card > major Stayman. The Committee took the view that the amount of > information available stepped over the line - was too much. > > [On a personal note, I find myself having to work my mind around the > failure to agree the fourth example. I will wish to absorb what > difference > of degree the Committee sees in it.] I agree that it's very hard to find the line that this example falls on the other side of from the first three. 3C "might" be 5-card Stayman, but that's just a red herring; if it is, then we don't allow the penalty-free correction, which has nothing to do with the case when it isn't. I'd be very curious as to what the committee thought the "information available" is. I can construct hands where one might bid 2C over 1NT but not 3C over 2NT, but no more easily or readily than I can for the first three examples, nor any less dependent on "negative inferences". Some partnerships (including some of mine) do play that 1NT-P-2C promises constructive values; perhaps this is a common treatment among members of the committee. Playing that way, I wouldn't allow the correction either. But the standard Stayman agreement in the ACBL allows this auction on a zero-count. With that agreement, I would think the penalty-free 3C should be allowed, and I would expect this to be borne out by future ACBL jurisprudence. If I'm right, the example is technically correct but highly misleading, and its explanation needs to be elaborated for publication. > Summary: The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the > calls > and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has > the same > basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already fully incorporated > within, the original call. He does not need to delve into the > multitude of > potential subtle negative inferences that may be available. But the > stretch > does not extend so far as to allow things that are plainly > different, for > example in respect of suit length or point range - these are still > subject > to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written in the law book. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Wed May 20 15:29:43 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:29:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <4A13EF32.5040108@talktalk.net> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A13EF32.5040108@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <2003C46FC94F4F2D82CAEE78E7B4335B@mamoslaptop> I'll own up to being a member of the Committee (EBU Laws and Ethics) and also a practicing TD at a very wide range of levels of play from Novice Club to international No one can deny that the attempts of the Lawmakers to "liberalise" Law 27 made a fairly dire Law almost impossible for even experienced practioneers. Nonetheless its no good saying now this Law needs changing because we are stuck with it (I guess that I probably wasn't originally much in sympathy with "liberalising" - if players cannot pay attention sufficiently to notice if partner opened 1NT or 2NT, I'm not sure where the concept of "carrying on playing bridge" comes from) The vast majority of the time I respond 3C to 2NT, I'll have a weakish, generally fairly balanced hand perhaps in the range 3+ or a bit more The vast majority of those hands would not respond 2C to a weak NT or indeed even in many cases to a 15-17 1NT. (Novices are often taught that Stayman shows invitational values - Klinger certainly teaches this) 3C Stayman over 2NT covers a much larger set of hands than 2C over 1NT - certainly not more precise - just look at the footnote You could write Law 27 in different terms Any insufficient bid may be accepted etc etc Otherwise it is cancelled. Law 16 applies but until you do I think what L&E was trying to say was we could live with allowing rectification calls that had roughly the same meaning but weren't prepared to go as far as accepting ones where the information from what a bid or call shows or excludes was very different I don't see how you can twist 27B1(b) to apply to this case Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. > [Grattan Endicott] > > ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > On 19th May the EBU L&E Committee looked at four examples > of possible applications of Law 27B1(b) in the light of the WBF > minute stretching the interpretation of this Law. Brief details follow > and when available the EBU minute of the discussion should be > consulted. The problem with this law is to find words which cross > the boundaries of bridge cultures in the various Zones and NBOs. > This may perhaps be most successfully done by publicising any > examples (from wherever) as they occur. > > Example 1: (agreed) : 1C - 1S - 1H (not having seen the overcall) > replaced with 'double' > The double shows 5+ HCP and four Hearts. The stretch is that a hand > with (say) four Hearts and five Diamonds would have responded 1D > had there been no overcall but would double after the overcall. The > stretching of the law means that the Director need not delve into these > negative inferences. > > Example 2 (agreed) : 1NT - 2S - 2D (not having seen the overcall. > replaced with 3H - natural and forcing. > The stretch is that game forcing hands with four Hearts would have > responded 2C (Stayman) had there been no overcall. Partner has the > additional information that the infractor's hand does not have four > Spades. > Again the TD is encouraged to ignore this sort of negative inference. > > Example 3 (agreed) : 1C (Precision) - 1S - 1D (overcall not seen) > replaced with 'double' showing 5-7 HCP. > The stretch is that without the overcall 1D is 0-7 HCP. However, > hands in the 5-7 range with a six card major would have responded > 2H/2S had there been no overcall but are constrained to double > after the overcall. Partner has additional information about the major > suits in consequence.. > > Example 4 (rejected): 2NT - P - 2C > Responder thinks partner has bid 1NT and > his 2C is Stayman. He has 3C available > which is also Stayman. A liberal approach > will allow this change. > The stretch is that there are some hands that would use 3C Stayman > that would not have used 2C Stayman. Also, 3C might be 5-card > major Stayman. The Committee took the view that the amount of > information available stepped over the line - was too much. > > [On a personal note, I find myself having to work my mind around the > failure to agree the fourth example. I will wish to absorb what difference > of degree the Committee sees in it.] > > Summary: The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls > and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has the same > basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already fully incorporated > within, the original call. He does not need to delve into the multitude of > potential subtle negative inferences that may be available. But the > stretch > does not extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for > example in respect of suit length or point range - these are still subject > to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written in the law book. > > {Nigel] > Thank you Grattan. I especially like the last example of a *borderline* > decision that disallows a specific change of call. I still, fear, however > that > 1. Few directors at club level will have time to study the minutes, even > if they are notified of their existence. > 2. The guidance only scratches the surface of the simplest application of > this law. For example.it does not begin to address the problem of > interpreting partner's call, depending on the options chosen by him or the > other side, especially when there is an implicit agreement. > 3. This is just one law. Admittedly a troublesome one. But there are other > examples of laws that need clarification. Even with brilliant dedicated > directors and the best will in the world, such sophisticated laws will > always have too much scope for subjective variation to achieve any degree > of consistency. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 20 16:15:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 15:15:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred><200905201138.n4KBcViC006399@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4A13F373.2020904@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003301c9d955$6b01d6e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. >> Example 4 (rejected): 2NT - P - 2C >> Responder thinks partner has bid 1NT >> and his 2C is Stayman. He has 3C available which is also Stayman. >> A liberal approach will allow this change. >> The stretch is that there are some hands that would use 3C Stayman >> that would not have used 2C Stayman. Also, 3C might be 5-card >> major Stayman. The Committee took the view that the amount of >> information available stepped over the line - was too much. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > (Tony Musgrove) > I have always allowed ex.4. I don't want to know what was intended, > I don't want to know if they play extended Stayman, simple Stayman, > or puppet stayman. I certainly don't want to look at their hand. > I may use 27D to mop up afterwards. So sue me, > AG : I don't think they'll have to sue you. After all, 3C asks, rather than tells. If 3C is simple Stayman, I don't see any cases where one would bid 3C but not 2C. Is it the fact that responder has enough to answer a 1NT opening ? Not relevant, as many use "weak Stayman" nowadays. And anyway, who would speak again after 2NT-3C-3H-3NT because they know partner holds 8-9 HCP ??? Even if 3C is Puppet or similar, opener is required to answer his major(s), so that one won't be able to use any UI except in very uncommon cases. Also, notice that many pairs use 2C without holding any major, e.g. to prepare a NT invitation. Grattan, would you please tell us what case of "usable UI" the committee had in mind when disallowing 3C ? Best regards Alain +=+ I have been pursuing the question because I did not follow the basis on which case 4 was rejected. I have been playing for over fifty years that the use of Stayman (with 1NT of whatever range) makes no statement about, and has no implications as to, values. Here is the response I received to my puzzlement and my reaction:- " In no. 4 is the problem more extreme in the UK because an English 1NT would be weak and the rest of the world would be strong. Do the rest of the world use 2C Stayman on weaker hands than we would - therefore not showing such an extreme difference in point range when the man thinks partner opened 1NT rather than 2NT ? " (Grattan) 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 ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 20 16:19:39 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 16:19:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <2003C46FC94F4F2D82CAEE78E7B4335B@mamoslaptop> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A13EF32.5040108@talktalk.net> <2003C46FC94F4F2D82CAEE78E7B4335B@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <4A14117B.2020502@ulb.ac.be> Mike Amos a ?crit : > > No one can deny that the attempts of the Lawmakers to "liberalise" Law 27 > made a fairly dire Law almost impossible for even experienced practioneers. > Nonetheless its no good saying now this Law needs changing because we are > stuck with it > > AG : IMOCO there are two main types of bridge laws dealing with infractions : those which penalize in a fixed way, like BOOT laws, and those which endeavour to restore an equitable result, like UI laws. Revoke laws and IB laws have evolved from the 'penalty' type to an 'intermediate type', i.e. 'try to save the board when you know how to do that ; else penalize'. Of course the 'penalty type' laws are easier to implement and use. It seems that Mike values them for this reason. However, many of us are think differently. We like the objective of restoring equity to have a rather high priority order. To us, L27 is a step in the right direction, which, like any new and subtle device, may need some adjustments, instructions for use and much experience sharing - that's what we're attempting on blml. Contrary to Mike, I like the way it develops. > You could write Law 27 in different terms > > Any insufficient bid may be accepted etc etc > Otherwise it is cancelled. > Law 16 applies > > Not a bad idea. Just carries the principle of non-automatic-penalty much further. More complicated to use, of course. So you're telling us you accept either of the extreme positions but not the middle one ? > but until you do I think what L&E was trying to say was we could live with > allowing rectification calls that had roughly the same meaning but weren't > prepared to go as far as accepting ones where the information from what a > bid or call shows or excludes was very different > > I don't see how you can twist 27B1(b) to apply to this case > AG : may i suggest the following : *Any insufficient bid may be accepted in which case etc. Else it is cancelled. The player may substitute any other bid. If the TD consideres that the cancelled bid transmitted an important amount of information that isn't present in the substitute bid, he'll decide that the sustitute bid be definitive (and L23 may apply). If the TD considers that little UI has been transmitted, or that it is likely to have little impact, he'll allow the bidding to continue normally, but the NOS may call him back if they think UI indeed influenced the ensuing bidding or play, in which case L16 applies. The TD has to inform the player of this decision before the player decides what bid to make, and in the absence of other players* You're right. It wouldn't be easy to use. We're paid to make such -possibly difficult- rulings.. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed May 20 17:22:28 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:22:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <4A13F9FB.9060608@ulb.ac.be> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <200905201138.n4KBcViC006399@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000901c9d945$4fe5a270$efb0e750$@no> <4A13F9FB.9060608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000501c9d95e$c97103f0$5c530bd0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > I have always rejected ex.4 for the following reason: > > Stayman usually implies an invitation to game and thus "promises" 25 HCP > > within the partnership if opener has a maximum. > > So opposite a 15-17 1NT opening bid 2C shows 8+ HCP while opposite a 20-21 > > 2NT opening bid 3C can be made with only 4 HCP and is therefore "less > > precise" than the IB. > > > AG : but even if 2C is such, what use can opener have from this > information ? Excepted in rare competitive sequences, he'll just accpet > partner's decision, or act on perfectly legal information (e.g. > 2NT-3C-3H-4NT : he now knows partner has about 12 HCP and 4 spades). Oh dear, I thought that 4NT would be Blackwood with Hearts accepted as trump in this sequence! But I agree, responder's second bid will eliminate the "extra" information from the IB in this case. However I am not so sure this is sufficient to make the 3C call "equal to or more precise than the IB" _at the time of the IB_! (Law 27B1(b) doesn't allow for judgment on whether or not the "extra" information from the IB can have any impact on the auction or play, that question is left to Law 27D) > Contrast with the difference between a 1H opening and a 2D response to > 1NT, where the knowledge that partner holds 10+ (or 5+ in the case of an > attempted response to 1m) will often be useful in competition. I would not accept the sequence 1NT - pass - 1H corrected to 1NT - pass - 2D as 2D can be made with all the way down to zero HCP while 1H promises opening values. However, I believe you have in mind: ex.2:1NT - 2S - 2D (not having seen the overcall. replaced with 3H - natural and forcing where I indeed consider 3H to be "more precise" than the 2D IB. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed May 20 17:37:34 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:37:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <003301c9d955$6b01d6e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred><200905201138.n4KBcViC006399@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4A13F373.2020904@ulb.ac.be> <003301c9d955$6b01d6e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000601c9d960$e5e24970$b1a6dc50$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan ........................... > +=+ I have been pursuing the question because I did not > follow the basis on which case 4 was rejected. I have been > playing for over fifty years that the use of Stayman (with > 1NT of whatever range) makes no statement about, and > has no implications as to, values. Here is the response I > received to my puzzlement and my reaction:- > > " In no. 4 is the problem more extreme in the UK > because an English 1NT would be weak and the rest of > the world would be strong. Do the rest of the world use > 2C Stayman on weaker hands than we would - therefore > not showing such an extreme difference in point range > when the man thinks partner opened 1NT rather than > 2NT ? " > > (Grattan) > 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 ~ +=+ I have assumed that Stayman nowadays always promises some values sufficient for the combined hands to play at least as well on the level forced to by Stayman as on the level of the opening bid. That is my foundation for assuming at least 8HCP for 2C over 1NT and at least 4HCP for 3C over 2NT. In a partnership allowing Stayman (whether 2C or 3C) on zero HCP hands I think that in the sequence 2NT - PASS - 2C a correction of the IB to 3C must be permissible without any subsequent restriction on the opener. This correction is well within the frame "equal to or more precise than the IB". So it appears that I fully agree with Grattan here (in spite of what I have written earlier to this thread). Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed May 20 18:54:23 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:54:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A13EF32.5040108@talktalk.net><2003C46FC94F4F2D82CAEE78E7B4335B@mamoslaptop> <4A14117B.2020502@ulb.ac.be> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A13EF32.5040108@talktalk.net><2003C46FC94F4F2D82CAEE78E7B4335B@mamoslaptop> <4A14117B.2020502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 09:19 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. > Mike Amos a ?crit : >> >> No one can deny that the attempts of the Lawmakers to "liberalise" Law 27 >> made a fairly dire Law almost impossible for even experienced >> practioneers. >> Nonetheless its no good saying now this Law needs changing because we are >> stuck with it >> >> > AG : IMOCO there are two main types of bridge laws dealing with > infractions : those which penalize in a fixed way, like BOOT laws, and > those which endeavour to restore an equitable result, like UI laws. This assertion is an arguable one. My view would be considered 180 degrees. BOOT remedies are an attempt to arrive at an equitable outcome. UI remedies on the contrary fix the penalty to be the harshest*** that the vindictive might mete out and expect to survive the views of society. I'm not commenting on the efficacy of such remedies. *** indeed, is that not what the least favorable result is? regards roger pewick > Revoke laws and IB laws have evolved from the 'penalty' type to an > 'intermediate type', i.e. 'try to save the board when you know how to do > that ; else penalize'. > Of course the 'penalty type' laws are easier to implement and use. It > seems that Mike values them for this reason. > > However, many of us are think differently. We like the objective of > restoring equity to have a rather high priority order. To us, L27 is a > step in the right direction, which, like any new and subtle device, may > need some adjustments, instructions for use and much experience sharing > - that's what we're attempting on blml. Contrary to Mike, I like the > way it develops. > >> You could write Law 27 in different terms >> >> Any insufficient bid may be accepted etc etc >> Otherwise it is cancelled. >> Law 16 applies >> >> > Not a bad idea. Just carries the principle of non-automatic-penalty much > further. More complicated to use, of course. > > So you're telling us you accept either of the extreme positions but not > the middle one ? > >> but until you do I think what L&E was trying to say was we could live >> with >> allowing rectification calls that had roughly the same meaning but >> weren't >> prepared to go as far as accepting ones where the information from what a >> bid or call shows or excludes was very different >> >> I don't see how you can twist 27B1(b) to apply to this case >> > AG : may i suggest the following : > > *Any insufficient bid may be accepted in which case etc. > Else it is cancelled. The player may substitute any other bid. > > If the TD consideres that the cancelled bid transmitted an important > amount of information that isn't present in the substitute bid, he'll > decide that the sustitute bid be definitive (and L23 may apply). > If the TD considers that little UI has been transmitted, or that it is > likely to have little impact, he'll allow the bidding to continue > normally, but the NOS may call him back if they think UI indeed > influenced the ensuing bidding or play, in which case L16 applies. > > The TD has to inform the player of this decision before the player > decides what bid to make, and in the absence of other players* > > > You're right. It wouldn't be easy to use. We're paid to make such > -possibly difficult- rulings.. > > > Best regards > > Alain From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed May 20 21:14:03 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 20:14:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A13EF32.5040108@talktalk.net><2003C46FC94F4F2D82CAEE78E7B4335B@mamoslaptop> <4A14117B.2020502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A14567B.3010502@talktalk.net> I seem to have underestimated the problem of such over-sophisticated laws. It is not just that some of us are too lazy or stupid to understand them. It seems that bright diligent BLMLers are able to understand them. Furthermore, they understand the EBU guidelines. But they still reject recommended interpretations. It would pay a skilled secretary bird to be aware of directors' idiosyncrasies. For example, after the auction starts 2N (_P) 2C (Stayman), you may need a different director depending on whether partner or an opponent is the culprit. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu May 21 03:03:39 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 21:03:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] EBU Law 27B1(b) examples. In-Reply-To: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c9d923$0a48dd80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2ADE7A84763E48C4A85D837BE395081E@erdos> "Grattan" writes: > Example 4 (rejected): 2NT - P - 2C > Responder thinks partner has bid 1NT and > his 2C is Stayman. He has 3C available > which is also Stayman. A liberal approach > will allow this change. > The stretch is that there are some hands that would use 3C Stayman > that would not have used 2C Stayman. Also, 3C might be 5-card > major Stayman. The Committee took the view that the amount of > information available stepped over the line - was too much. The problem with this situation is that it depends on responder's state of mind. If responder knows that partner has shown a 2NT opening and bids 2C because he wants to bid Stayman, then a correction to 3C shows exactly the same hand (unless 3C is Puppet Stayman and 2C was intended as normal Stayman). If responder actually thought partner had opened 1NT, then a correction to 3C shows many hands which would not bid 2C over 1NT; even if responder can have a 0-count to bid 2C over 1NT (xxxx xxxx xxxx x), he cannot have a hand with less than invitational values unless it can play in both majors (xx AJxx xxx Jxxx is a clear 3C over 2NT, but must pass 1NT because it has no bid over a 2S reply). From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu May 21 14:13:43 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (GORDON RAINSFORD) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:13:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog Message-ID: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not know that John (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and is in the Royal London Hospital. His condition has improved over the last few days and he can now talk a bit, but tires easily and is not well enough for many visitors. However I'm sure he'll welcome messages, either directly to his email address for when he's well enough to access them, or here on the list which I'll undertake to get passed on and read out to him. ? Gordon Rainsford From svenpran at online.no Thu May 21 14:53:20 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 14:53:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001201c9da13$1f51fb30$5df5f190$@no> Please count me in with a "get well" message Gordon! Although I have never met him we have exchanged comments here on blml at times. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > GORDON RAINSFORD > Sent: 21. mai 2009 14:14 > To: Blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog > > > I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not know that John > (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and is in the Royal London > Hospital. His condition has improved over the last few days and he can now talk a > bit, but tires easily and is not well enough for many visitors. However I'm sure he'll > welcome messages, either directly to his email address for when he's well enough > to access them, or here on the list which I'll undertake to get passed on and read > out to him. > > Gordon Rainsford > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 21 15:28:28 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:28:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: <001201c9da13$1f51fb30$5df5f190$@no> References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <001201c9da13$1f51fb30$5df5f190$@no> Message-ID: <4A1556FC.3060307@skynet.be> I have met him, often, and please wish him well from me. Herman Sven Pran wrote: > Please count me in with a "get well" message Gordon! Although I have never > met him we have exchanged comments here on blml at times. > Regards Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> GORDON RAINSFORD >> Sent: 21. mai 2009 14:14 >> To: Blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog >> >> >> I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not know > that John >> (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and is in the Royal London >> Hospital. His condition has improved over the last few days and he can now > talk a >> bit, but tires easily and is not well enough for many visitors. However > I'm sure he'll >> welcome messages, either directly to his email address for when he's well > enough >> to access them, or here on the list which I'll undertake to get passed on > and read >> out to him. >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 21 15:33:10 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:33:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 21, 2009, at 8:13 AM, GORDON RAINSFORD wrote: > I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not > know that John (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and > is in the Royal London Hospital. His condition has improved over > the last few days and he can now talk a bit, but tires easily and > is not well enough for many visitors. However I'm sure he'll > welcome messages, either directly to his email address for when > he's well enough to access them, or here on the list which I'll > undertake to get passed on and read out to him. Please wish him well and let him know we're looking forward to his return. Do you know if he's likely to be in the Royal London for a week or so, which would be long enough for snail mail from the U.S. to reach him there? Or whether he makes his home address generally available, in which case someone might post it? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From schoderb at msn.com Thu May 21 17:20:21 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 11:20:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Gordon, I've had the great pleasure of seeing Mad Dog numerous times in Europe. He is a strong power to see to it that TDs qualify themselves to the best they can. His knowledge of the game, rules, and laws is fantastic. Thank you Gordon for making the contact with him, and tell him "Kojak says he needs you, so get with it, recuperate, and sorry he couldn't get with you in Wiesbaden last year, but the buggers let politics get the better of the game after 26 years." I'll look forward to hearing about how he's doing, and will contact him directly when he is able to get messages. Best regards, "Kojak" -- Bill Schoder ----- Original Message ----- From: GORDON RAINSFORD To: Blml at rtflb.org Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:13 AM Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not know that John (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and is in the Royal London Hospital. His condition has improved over the last few days and he can now talk a bit, but tires easily and is not well enough for many visitors. However I'm sure he'll welcome messages, either directly to his email address for when he's well enough to access them, or here on the list which I'll undertake to get passed on and read out to him. Gordon Rainsford _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090521/ccf6c2d9/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Thu May 21 17:52:35 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 08:52:35 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 May 2009 12:13:43 -0000." <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200905211537.IAA23263@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon, > I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not > know that John (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and is > in the Royal London Hospital. His condition has improved over the > last few days and he can now talk a bit, but tires easily and is not > well enough for many visitors. However I'm sure he'll welcome > messages, either directly to his email address for when he's well > enough to access them, or here on the list which I'll undertake to > get passed on and read out to him. I've never met John, but he's long been one of my favorite contributors to this list. I'm praying for his recovery. John also used to post to rec.games.bridge a fair amount, so many people there might also be interested to know of this. -- Adam From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 21 18:05:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:05:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog References: <200905211537.IAA23263@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001401c9da2d$feb2bd40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Mad Dog > > Gordon, > >> I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not >> know that John (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and is >> in the Royal London Hospital. His condition has improved over the >> last few days and he can now talk a bit, but tires easily and is not >> well enough for many visitors. However I'm sure he'll welcome >> messages, either directly to his email address for when he's well >> enough to access them, or here on the list which I'll undertake to >> get passed on and read out to him. > > I've never met John, but he's long been one of my favorite > contributors to this list. I'm praying for his recovery. > > John also used to post to rec.games.bridge a fair amount, so many > people there might also be interested to know of this. > > -- Adam > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu May 21 18:40:53 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:40:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A158415.2050000@talktalk.net> [Gordon Rainsford] I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not know that John (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and is in the Royal London Hospital. His condition has improved over the last few days and he can now talk a bit, but tires easily and is not well enough for many visitors. However I'm sure he'll welcome messages, either directly to his email address for when he's well enough to access them, or here on the list which I'll undertake to get passed on and read out to him. [Nigel] Best wishes for a speedy recovery. From zecurado at gmail.com Thu May 21 20:09:37 2009 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:09:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: <4A158415.2050000@talktalk.net> References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4A158415.2050000@talktalk.net> Message-ID: I am also one of the lucky ones to have met John a couple of times and often quote the "Probst Cheat" in Bridge classes for beginners, here in Madeira, when explaining some of the basic laws in a lighter way with enormous success and laughter. Please send him my wishes of a speaddy and sound recovery! And thank you so much Gordon for being the "mailman" of our best wishes! Jose Curado Madeira Island, Portugal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090521/8d2f2398/attachment.html From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Thu May 21 22:20:22 2009 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 22:20:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: <4A158415.2050000@talktalk.net> References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4A158415.2050000@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <0243111E66DC4549999784F42CE365D2@Hassedator> Daer Nigel, I would appreciate if you send my regards to John. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall?n ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Mad Dog > [Gordon Rainsford] > I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not know > that John (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and is in the > Royal London Hospital. His condition has improved over the last few days > and he can now talk a bit, but tires easily and is not well enough for > many visitors. However I'm sure he'll welcome messages, either directly to > his email address for when he's well enough to access them, or here on the > list which I'll undertake to get passed on and read out to him. > > [Nigel] > Best wishes for a speedy recovery. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri May 22 00:20:41 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 00:20:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions, again Message-ID: <4A15D3B9.3080808@aol.com> 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 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri May 22 00:45:26 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 14:45:26 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing Message-ID: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> Club game North East South West 1H Pass 2D Pass 3H Pass 4H Pass 4NT Pass *** Pass *** Bidding cards picked up. Shocked exclamation from North--"You're passing 4NT?" >From the Tech Notes in ACBLScore: When a player picks up his bidding cards because he thinks the auction is already over and he has no turn coming, he has not passed. He gets to do whatever he wants without penalty (CTD, Feb 2008). So the TD ruled that South could respond to the 4NT bid, saying it was obvious that she thought her 4H bid had been followed by three passes. After South then responded to 4NT, North bid 6H, making with the help of a finesse, for a near-top. There's something wrong here. If South was not in the habit of picking up the bidding cards to indicate a pass, she would have put down a pass card and the auction would have been over for sure. If it makes any difference, South is not an inexperienced player, far from it. Also, E-W had the ace and king of diamonds but would not have cashed them, so the 4NT contract would have resulted in 12 tricks and N-S would have beaten the many who stopped in 4H. Comments, please. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri May 22 02:39:39 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:39:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0905211739m618651e7hd6109147e75e90af@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > > Club game > > North ? East ? South ?West > 1H ? ? ? Pass ? ?2D ? ? Pass > 3H ? ? ? Pass ? ?4H ? ? Pass > 4NT ? ?Pass ? ?*** ? ?Pass > > *** Bidding cards picked up. > > There's something wrong here. If South was not in the habit of > picking up the bidding cards to indicate a pass, she would have put > down a pass card and the auction would have been over for sure. > There is nothing wrong here. South's habits when East and West are bidding is immaterial. No one is expected to "indicate a pass" after the auction is already over. It seems wrong to claim that South "would have put down a pass card" under any circumstances of lawful habit. Jerry Fusselman From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri May 22 03:41:18 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 20:41:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Marvin L French" Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 17:45 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing > Club game > > North East South West > 1H Pass 2D Pass > 3H Pass 4H Pass > 4NT Pass *** Pass > > *** Bidding cards picked up. > > Shocked exclamation from North--"You're passing 4NT?" > >>From the Tech Notes in ACBLScore: > > When a player picks up his bidding cards because he thinks the > auction is already over and he has no turn coming, he has not > passed. He gets to do whatever he wants without penalty (CTD, Feb > 2008). Isn't this in conflict with L21? - a player that acts on his own misunderstanding has no recourse. Notably, when a player picks up his cards it is because the auction is over or it is his pass. And when in fact such a pass would not be an auction ending pass- then [a] it can improperly induce the LHO to act out of turn and [b] to back up the auction [against the provisions of law, perhaps?] amounts to a bidding alcatraz coup. Given that the bidding is out there to see, such a player could have known he is committing an alcatraz coup. Also notable is that L46 deals with euphemisms when declarer designates cards. The picking up of the bidding cards at one's turn is quite the same thing. But to make regulations that condone the committing of an alcatraz coup is at least contrary to to spirit of the law. regards roger pewick > So the TD ruled that South could respond to the 4NT bid, saying it > was obvious that she thought her 4H bid had been followed by three > passes. After South then responded to 4NT, North bid 6H, making with > the help of a finesse, for a near-top. > > There's something wrong here. If South was not in the habit of > picking up the bidding cards to indicate a pass, she would have put > down a pass card and the auction would have been over for sure. > > If it makes any difference, South is not an inexperienced player, > far from it. Also, E-W had the ace and king of diamonds but would > not have cashed them, so the 4NT contract would have resulted in 12 > tricks and N-S would have beaten the many who stopped in 4H. > > Comments, please. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri May 22 05:22:28 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:22:28 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <6CC89F18F73E49D5ADB42E2F19C0BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Roger Pewick" > >> Club game >> >> North East South West >> 1H Pass 2D Pass >> 3H Pass 4H Pass >> 4NT Pass *** Pass >> >> *** Bidding cards picked up. >> >> Shocked exclamation from North--"You're passing 4NT?" >> >>>From the Tech Notes in ACBLScore: >> >> When a player picks up his bidding cards because he thinks the >> auction is already over and he has no turn coming, he has not >> passed. He gets to do whatever he wants without penalty (CTD, Feb >> 2008). > > Isn't this in conflict with L21? - a player that acts on his own > misunderstanding has no recourse. I don't think that failing to see the 4NT bid constitutes a misunderstanding. > > Notably, when a player picks up his cards it is because the > auction is over > or it is his pass. And when in fact such a pass would not be an > auction > ending pass- then [a] it can improperly induce the LHO to act out > of turn > and [b] to back up the auction [against the provisions of law, > perhaps?] > amounts to a bidding alcatraz coup. Given that the bidding is out > there to > see, such a player could have known he is committing an alcatraz > coup. Yes, I could innocently pick up my bidding cards after partner raises my stopperlesss notrump bid, pretending that I had not seen the raise. Then LHO doubles, which I feared. I can now run to a safer contract, claiming I had not passed. > Also notable is that L46 deals with euphemisms when declarer > designates > cards. The picking up of the bidding cards at one's turn is quite > the same > thing. But to make regulations that condone the committing of an > alcatraz > coup is at least contrary to to spirit of the law. Picking up the bidding cards does not constitute a pass, even though many players think it does. There should be a regulation forbidding the practice or one that says it's okay, not leaving it in limbo. Or simply say that doing that it is equivalent to putting down the pass card. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri May 22 11:16:58 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 10:16:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <930E297E-5C01-4B31-8294-1EDE02E8DA44@btinternet.com> On 21 May 2009, at 14:33, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 21, 2009, at 8:13 AM, GORDON RAINSFORD wrote: > >> I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not >> know that John (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and >> is in the Royal London Hospital. His condition has improved over >> the last few days and he can now talk a bit, but tires easily and >> is not well enough for many visitors. However I'm sure he'll >> welcome messages, either directly to his email address for when >> he's well enough to access them, or here on the list which I'll >> undertake to get passed on and read out to him. > > Please wish him well and let him know we're looking forward to his > return. > > Do you know if he's likely to be in the Royal London for a week or > so, which would be long enough for snail mail from the U.S. to > reach him there? Or whether he makes his home address generally > available, in which case someone might post it? He'll probably be moved to another hospital in about a week, but Maxine - his wife - is happy for me to give out their mail address, so I'll send it to you by email Eric, and to anyone else who asks. Thanks to everyone for your messages - I've combined them into a digest and am arranging for them to be passed on to him. Gordon Rainsford > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 22 12:16:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:16:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <6CC89F18F73E49D5ADB42E2F19C0BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001c01c9dac6$9ff47e30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing > > From: "Roger Pewick" >> >>> Club game >>> >>> North East South West >>> 1H Pass 2D Pass >>> 3H Pass 4H Pass >>> 4NT Pass *** Pass >>> >>> *** Bidding cards picked up. >>> >>> Shocked exclamation from North-- >>> "You're passing 4NT?" >>> > +=+ North's exclamation is a violation of Laws 73A1 and 74C4. South is responsible for compliance with Law 73C.. See Laws 82A and 82B. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 22 12:23:12 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:23:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4A167D10.3080304@ulb.ac.be> Marvin L French a ?crit : > Club game > > North East South West > 1H Pass 2D Pass > 3H Pass 4H Pass > 4NT Pass *** Pass > > *** Bidding cards picked up. > > Shocked exclamation from North--"You're passing 4NT?" > > >From the Tech Notes in ACBLScore: > > When a player picks up his bidding cards because he thinks the > auction is already over and he has no turn coming, he has not > passed. He gets to do whatever he wants without penalty (CTD, Feb > 2008). > > So the TD ruled that South could respond to the 4NT bid, saying it > was obvious that she thought her 4H bid had been followed by three > passes. AG : indeed she thought that. And partner's remark made her realize. A clear case of partner's mannerism helping you - disallowed. Same kind of situation than when a player lets remark, at his partner's turn to bid, that opponent's 1NT opening was weak To make it short : if partner had remained silent, the contract would have been 4NT. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 22 12:25:36 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:25:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: <6CC89F18F73E49D5ADB42E2F19C0BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <6CC89F18F73E49D5ADB42E2F19C0BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4A167DA0.9040202@ulb.ac.be> Marvin L French a ?crit : > Picking up the bidding cards does not constitute a pass, even though > many players think it does. > There should be a regulation forbidding the practice or one that > says it's okay, not leaving it in limbo. Or simply say that doing > that it is equivalent to putting down the pass card. > AG : 100% of Belgian TDs would rule that it is indeed equivalent, although it isn't explicits in the rules. What other reason would there be to pick one's cards voluntarily ? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 22 12:33:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:33:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <6CC89F18F73E49D5ADB42E2F19C0BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001201c9dac8$c79d50e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing > > Picking up the bidding cards does not constitute a pass, even though > many players think it does. > There should be a regulation forbidding the practice or one that > says it's okay, not leaving it in limbo. Or simply say that doing > that it is equivalent to putting down the pass card. > (Extract from WBF General Conditions of Contest 2009:) "Until they are removed from the table, a player obtains a review of the auction by inspecting the bidding cards. When such inspection is not feasible a player may obtain a review of the auction at his first turn to play to trick one. If a player whose pass will conclude the auction removes his bidding cards from the table he is deemed to have passed." NB Playing with screens, normal in WBF Championships, there is some modification of the bidding box regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri May 22 13:24:32 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:24:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4A168B70.8060401@talktalk.net> [Marvin L French] Club game North East South West 1H Pass 2D Pass 3H Pass 4H Pass 4NT Pass *** Pass *** Bidding cards picked up. Shocked exclamation from North-- "You're passing 4NT?" >From the Tech Notes in ACBLScore: When a player picks up his bidding cards because he thinks the auction is already over and he has no turn coming, he has not passed. He gets to do whatever he wants without penalty (CTD, Feb 2008). So the TD ruled that South could respond to the 4NT bid, saying it was obvious that she thought her 4H bid had been followed by three passes. After South then responded to 4NT, North bid 6H, making with the help of a finesse, for a near-top. There's something wrong here. If South was not in the habit of picking up the bidding cards to indicate a pass, she would have put down a pass card and the auction would have been over for sure. If it makes any difference, South is not an inexperienced player, far from it. Also, E-W had the ace and king of diamonds but would not have cashed them, so the 4NT contract would have resulted in 12 tricks and N-S would have beaten the many who stopped in 4H. Comments, please. [Nige1] IMO... A. The director should rule 4N-2 (because it must be *possible* for the defence to cash their diamonds). B. The director should issue a PP to *North* for his "You're passing 4NT?" exclamation. C. (More controversially -- and probably irrelevant to the case under consideration), if South habitually picks up his cards instead of making his final pass, then the director should issue a PP to *South* for his his illegal designation of a call. (Such infractions are liable to cause confusion and disrupt the game). D. (Following on from C but slightly off topic) directors should also issue PPs to players, who incompletely or incorrectly designate the card they want to play from dummy. (For the same reason). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 22 13:31:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:31:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Picking up bidding cards Message-ID: <00c101c9dad0$e1b50740$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <4A168B70.8060401@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 May 2009 07:24:32 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Marvin L French] > > Club game > > North East South West > 1H Pass 2D Pass > 3H Pass 4H Pass > 4NT Pass *** Pass > > *** Bidding cards picked up. > > Shocked exclamation from North-- "You're passing 4NT?" > >> From the Tech Notes in ACBLScore: > > When a player picks up his bidding cards because he thinks the > auction is already over and he has no turn coming, he has not > passed. He gets to do whatever he wants without penalty (CTD, Feb > 2008). > > So the TD ruled that South could respond to the 4NT bid, saying it > was obvious that she thought her 4H bid had been followed by three > passes. After South then responded to 4NT, North bid 6H, making with > the help of a finesse, for a near-top. > > There's something wrong here. If South was not in the habit of > picking up the bidding cards to indicate a pass, she would have put > down a pass card and the auction would have been over for sure. > > If it makes any difference, South is not an inexperienced player, > far from it. Also, E-W had the ace and king of diamonds but would > not have cashed them, so the 4NT contract would have resulted in 12 > tricks and N-S would have beaten the many who stopped in 4H. > > Comments, please. > > [Nige1] IMO... > A. The director should rule 4N-2 (because it must be *possible* for the > defence to cash their diamonds). > B. The director should issue a PP to *North* for his "You're passing > 4NT?" exclamation. > C. (More controversially -- and probably irrelevant to the case under > consideration), if South habitually picks up his cards instead of making > his final pass, then the director should issue a PP to *South* for his > his illegal designation of a call. (Such infractions are liable to cause > confusion and disrupt the game). Such infractions do cause trouble. To give another example, I double a final contract and RHO picks up her cards instead of passing. Did she see my double or not? I always use my pass card. But picking up one's cards for an apparently-finished auction is extremely common and not easily changed. The only way I can see to change it, without pissing off a lot of people, is to offer an alternative, such as a vocal pass or some other indication of pass (such as knocking on the table) for apparently-finished auctions. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 22 15:10:49 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:10:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <4A168B70.8060401@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <4A16A459.20105@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > Such infractions do cause trouble. To give another example, I double a > final contract and RHO picks up her cards instead of passing. Did she see > my double or not? I always use my pass card. > AG : in such a case, it is legal for her partner to pass (or bid) after me, revealing her what happens. A good question would be : is it legal for partner to say 'the bidding isn't over yet' ? Notice that, in the 4NT case, this wouldn't help her. > But picking up one's cards for an apparently-finished auction is extremely > common and not easily changed. The only way I can see to change it, > without pissing off a lot of people, is to offer an alternative, such as a > vocal pass or some other indication of pass (such as knocking on the > table) for apparently-finished auctions. > AG : or nodding. In simple auctions (say 1NT-p-p), I use to show an open hand, meaning 'you may lead, partner'. I'm conscious there could be occasional UI, but only if one varies one's ways to pass. The guy who always picks his cards in lieu of passing (I know some of these) doesn't transmit UI. Perhaps it's improper, but it doesn't harm anybody and it speeds up things a wee bit. What's wrong ? But I don't like the idea of knocking, first because the number of times or the strength with which it is done can transmit (even unwillingly) informations about how you feel, and above all because it's the way one alerted, pre-BBs, and one still occasinally does, given the tendenciy of Alert cards to vanish into the Ether. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 22 15:18:34 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:18:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: <001201c9dac8$c79d50e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <6CC89F18F73E49D5ADB42E2F19C0BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> <001201c9dac8$c79d50e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <079A5B82-6752-4AE2-8C83-9923F240BF68@starpower.net> On May 22, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Marvin L French" > >> Picking up the bidding cards does not constitute a pass, even though >> many players think it does. >> There should be a regulation forbidding the practice or one that >> says it's okay, not leaving it in limbo. Or simply say that doing >> that it is equivalent to putting down the pass card. > > (Extract from WBF General Conditions of Contest 2009:) > "Until they are removed from the table, a player obtains a review of > the auction by inspecting the bidding cards. When such inspection > is not feasible a player may obtain a review of the auction at his > first turn to play to trick one. If a player whose pass will conclude > the auction removes his bidding cards from the table he is deemed > to have passed." This would seem to justify the ruling in the thread case. Although it doesn't explicitly say so, it certainly strongly suggests that if a player whose pass will not conclude the auction removes his bidding cards from the table he is not (necessarily) deemed to have passed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 22 16:11:02 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 16:11:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: <079A5B82-6752-4AE2-8C83-9923F240BF68@starpower.net> References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <6CC89F18F73E49D5ADB42E2F19C0BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> <001201c9dac8$c79d50e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <079A5B82-6752-4AE2-8C83-9923F240BF68@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A16B276.2010801@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On May 22, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Marvin L French" >> >>> Picking up the bidding cards does not constitute a pass, even though >>> many players think it does. >>> There should be a regulation forbidding the practice or one that >>> says it's okay, not leaving it in limbo. Or simply say that doing >>> that it is equivalent to putting down the pass card. >> (Extract from WBF General Conditions of Contest 2009:) >> "Until they are removed from the table, a player obtains a review of >> the auction by inspecting the bidding cards. When such inspection >> is not feasible a player may obtain a review of the auction at his >> first turn to play to trick one. If a player whose pass will conclude >> the auction removes his bidding cards from the table he is deemed >> to have passed." > > This would seem to justify the ruling in the thread case. Although > it doesn't explicitly say so, it certainly strongly suggests that if > a player whose pass will not conclude the auction removes his bidding > cards from the table he is not (necessarily) deemed to have passed. > That is not true. It is quite common for people to believe the bidding is over once a game has been bid. A few weeks ago, someone did it to me. Her partner had bid 4H and she took away her bidding cards even before my partner could pass. Out of frustration, I asked her to put the bidding cards back, and then doubled. Although that was our first non-pass of the auction, it did not stop there. My partner bid 4Sp, and doubled the 5He which also came. One down and a top for us. But taking up the bidding cards is either an indication of a pass or of thinking the bidding is over. So, in the thread case, we need to ask her what she thought. If she saw 3NT or 4He and intended to pass that, she has now passed on Blackwood. But if she thought her partner had passed, and the bidding was over, then she has not passed and she will now have to respond to Blackwood. I don't believe there can be a single rule for picking up the bidding cards. Rather, we need to find out what the intention was and stick the taker-upper to that intention. Of course in some local areas either the one or the other habit is so uncommon that as a local rule, the other or the one can be assumed. But I guess that the ACBL is too big to have such local rules. Herman. > > 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri May 22 16:10:53 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 16:10:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: <930E297E-5C01-4B31-8294-1EDE02E8DA44@btinternet.com> References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <930E297E-5C01-4B31-8294-1EDE02E8DA44@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4A16B26D.2010406@t-online.de> Sorry to be late, I was not at home for two days. And what do I read when I get back? I have met John, and like everyone else who has met him and who I talked to like him very much, he is a great guy. Gordon, thanks for letting us know, and please tell him to keep his spirits up. I learned from my father that this is one of the difficult things after a stroke, at least after serious ones, but one of the essential things, as much of the recovery depends on it. Please tell him I look forward to having a couple of drinks with him. My father had a severe stroke, he was paralyzed on his right side. The docs told him he would not go to work again, he would not drive a car, he would not write. Guess what he did less than a year later? The _will_ to do so is very important, I think John has lots of it, so (since I took from the initial posting that John's stroke was not as severe as that) I expect him to be back at the table sooner or later. Please give him my sincerest regards. Matthias From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 22 16:48:44 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 10:48:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: <079A5B82-6752-4AE2-8C83-9923F240BF68@starpower.net> References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <6CC89F18F73E49D5ADB42E2F19C0BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> <001201c9dac8$c79d50e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <079A5B82-6752-4AE2-8C83-9923F240BF68@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 May 2009 09:18:34 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 22, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Marvin L French" >> >>> Picking up the bidding cards does not constitute a pass, even though >>> many players think it does. >>> There should be a regulation forbidding the practice or one that >>> says it's okay, not leaving it in limbo. Or simply say that doing >>> that it is equivalent to putting down the pass card. >> >> (Extract from WBF General Conditions of Contest 2009:) >> "Until they are removed from the table, a player obtains a review of >> the auction by inspecting the bidding cards. When such inspection >> is not feasible a player may obtain a review of the auction at his >> first turn to play to trick one. If a player whose pass will conclude >> the auction removes his bidding cards from the table he is deemed >> to have passed." > > This would seem to justify the ruling in the thread case. Although > it doesn't explicitly say so, it certainly strongly suggests that if > a player whose pass will not conclude the auction removes his bidding > cards from the table he is not (necessarily) deemed to have passed. When a player starts putting away their bidding cards, instead of a final pass, I think it means "I am passing assuming everyone else is passing". The distinction would rarely arise. But when it does, I think that is a preferred meaning. For example 1S P 3S P 4S 5C PABC PABC = putting away bidding cards before 5C was bid If the 3S bidder put away their bidding cards while the 5C bidder thought about what to do, I don't think we want to force the 3S bidder to now pass. It is worse if the 1S opener can't double (L30B2(b)). Of course, if partner of the 5C bidder also puts away his bidding cards, you have the auction 1S P 3S P 4S -- PABC PABC Now partner has accepted the 3S bidder's pass out of rotation and it is the 4S bidder's turn to call? And I don't have any idea what happens for this 1D P 1H P 4H P 6H PABC thinking PABC PABC If those are treated like passes, I think it will depend on the order in which the cards are put away. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 22 16:55:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:55:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <6CC89F18F73E49D5ADB42E2F19C0BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> <001201c9dac8$c79d50e0$0302a8c0@Mildred><079A5B82-6752-4AE2-8C83-9923F240BF68@starpower.net> <4A16B276.2010801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00de01c9daed$699ab260$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott But taking up the bidding cards is either an indication > of a pass or of thinking the bidding is over. So, in the > thread case, we need to ask her what she thought. If > she saw 3NT or 4He and intended to pass that, she > has now passed on Blackwood. But if she thought her > partner had passed, and the bidding was over, then > she has not passed and she will now have to respond > to Blackwood. > +=+ I believe this assertion should be rephrased to say "she will now have to decide upon her action". As far as I am concerned, the law does not permit advantage to be taken of North's violation of law and the UI deriving from it. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 22 17:09:17 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 17:09:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: <079A5B82-6752-4AE2-8C83-9923F240BF68@starpower.net> References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <6CC89F18F73E49D5ADB42E2F19C0BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> <001201c9dac8$c79d50e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <079A5B82-6752-4AE2-8C83-9923F240BF68@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A16C01D.7030608@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On May 22, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Grattan wrote: > > >> From: "Marvin L French" >> >> >>> Picking up the bidding cards does not constitute a pass, even though >>> many players think it does. >>> There should be a regulation forbidding the practice or one that >>> says it's okay, not leaving it in limbo. Or simply say that doing >>> that it is equivalent to putting down the pass card. >>> >> (Extract from WBF General Conditions of Contest 2009:) >> "Until they are removed from the table, a player obtains a review of >> the auction by inspecting the bidding cards. When such inspection >> is not feasible a player may obtain a review of the auction at his >> first turn to play to trick one. If a player whose pass will conclude >> the auction removes his bidding cards from the table he is deemed >> to have passed." >> > > This would seem to justify the ruling in the thread case. Although > it doesn't explicitly say so, it certainly strongly suggests that if > a player whose pass will not conclude the auction removes his bidding > cards from the table he is not (necessarily) deemed to have passed. > AG : indeed. actually, I would probably decide the picker didn't pass, if he had noticed it himself, that is, had there not been partner's interjection; From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 22 17:23:59 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 17:23:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <6CC89F18F73E49D5ADB42E2F19C0BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> <001201c9dac8$c79d50e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <079A5B82-6752-4AE2-8C83-9923F240BF68@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4A16C38F.5060404@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Fri, 22 May 2009 09:18:34 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > >> On May 22, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Grattan wrote: >> >> >>> From: "Marvin L French" >>> >>> >>>> Picking up the bidding cards does not constitute a pass, even though >>>> many players think it does. >>>> There should be a regulation forbidding the practice or one that >>>> says it's okay, not leaving it in limbo. Or simply say that doing >>>> that it is equivalent to putting down the pass card. >>>> >>> (Extract from WBF General Conditions of Contest 2009:) >>> "Until they are removed from the table, a player obtains a review of >>> the auction by inspecting the bidding cards. When such inspection >>> is not feasible a player may obtain a review of the auction at his >>> first turn to play to trick one. If a player whose pass will conclude >>> the auction removes his bidding cards from the table he is deemed >>> to have passed." >>> >> This would seem to justify the ruling in the thread case. Although >> it doesn't explicitly say so, it certainly strongly suggests that if >> a player whose pass will not conclude the auction removes his bidding >> cards from the table he is not (necessarily) deemed to have passed. >> > > When a player starts putting away their bidding cards, instead of a final > pass, I think it means "I am passing assuming everyone else is passing". > The distinction would rarely arise. But when it does, I think that is a > preferred meaning. > > For example > > 1S P 3S P > 4S 5C PABC > > PABC = putting away bidding cards before 5C was bid > AG : this would be quite incorrect after 5C, because it gives some UI to partner. I would give a procedural penalty, and apply L16 if necessary. Contrast with the actual case. Before 5C, however, it's only a mild error. > If the 3S bidder put away their bidding cards while the 5C bidder thought > about what to do, I don't think we want to force the 3S bidder to now > pass. AG : agreed. > It is worse if the 1S opener can't double (L30B2(b)). > > Of course, if partner of the 5C bidder also puts away his bidding cards, > you have the auction > > 1S P 3S P > 4S -- PABC PABC > > Now partner has accepted the 3S bidder's pass out of rotation and it is > the 4S bidder's turn to call? > But is the first PABC a pass or the mention that one intends to pass ? Actually, it is very similar to somebody preparing one's card without showing it ; if something very unexpected happens, he might be allowed to pull his cad back (and be lectured about the right timing). Anyway, the case is different from the original one : - the player wasn't expected to bid, and made no error in assuming he shouldn't ; - partner didn't mum. I'd allow an inadvertent PABC to be retracted as a kind of 'change of bid without reflection' but not, emphatically not, after the mannerism. A case that I'd treat similarly : 1NT X XX 2H p p X ... While advancer hesitates, opener readies his 'X' card. If advancer now makes an insufficient bid, I wouldn't compel opener to condone the bid and double. But if responder said 'hey, that's an insufficient bid ! Don't condone it ', my ruling would be different. Best regards Alain From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri May 22 20:19:48 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 20:19:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bid cards picked up in lieu of passing In-Reply-To: References: <0CE910ABB4A747C78A64A80AF33EC473@MARVLAPTOP> <4A168B70.8060401@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <4A16ECC4.2030303@aol.com> Knocking on the table, in the days way before bidding boxes, was often done in lieu of a double. Some elderly players still knock on the table to indicate the double. JE Robert Frick schrieb: > On Fri, 22 May 2009 07:24:32 -0400, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > >> [Marvin L French] >> >> Club game >> >> North East South West >> 1H Pass 2D Pass >> 3H Pass 4H Pass >> 4NT Pass *** Pass >> >> *** Bidding cards picked up. >> >> Shocked exclamation from North-- "You're passing 4NT?" >> >>> From the Tech Notes in ACBLScore: >> When a player picks up his bidding cards because he thinks the >> auction is already over and he has no turn coming, he has not >> passed. He gets to do whatever he wants without penalty (CTD, Feb >> 2008). >> >> So the TD ruled that South could respond to the 4NT bid, saying it >> was obvious that she thought her 4H bid had been followed by three >> passes. After South then responded to 4NT, North bid 6H, making with >> the help of a finesse, for a near-top. >> >> There's something wrong here. If South was not in the habit of >> picking up the bidding cards to indicate a pass, she would have put >> down a pass card and the auction would have been over for sure. >> >> If it makes any difference, South is not an inexperienced player, >> far from it. Also, E-W had the ace and king of diamonds but would >> not have cashed them, so the 4NT contract would have resulted in 12 >> tricks and N-S would have beaten the many who stopped in 4H. >> >> Comments, please. >> >> [Nige1] IMO... >> A. The director should rule 4N-2 (because it must be *possible* for the >> defence to cash their diamonds). >> B. The director should issue a PP to *North* for his "You're passing >> 4NT?" exclamation. >> C. (More controversially -- and probably irrelevant to the case under >> consideration), if South habitually picks up his cards instead of making >> his final pass, then the director should issue a PP to *South* for his >> his illegal designation of a call. (Such infractions are liable to cause >> confusion and disrupt the game). > > Such infractions do cause trouble. To give another example, I double a > final contract and RHO picks up her cards instead of passing. Did she see > my double or not? I always use my pass card. > > But picking up one's cards for an apparently-finished auction is extremely > common and not easily changed. The only way I can see to change it, > without pissing off a lot of people, is to offer an alternative, such as a > vocal pass or some other indication of pass (such as knocking on the > table) for apparently-finished auctions. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 23 13:13:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 12:13:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. Message-ID: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "John Wignall" Cc: "Anna Gudge" Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:09 PM Subject: Brown sticker exemptions. > +=+ Hi John, > Could I just check with you on the definition of a > 'solid suit' which would constitute 'an average hand' and > therefore exempt the convention from Brown Sticker > categorization. > AKQJxx > AKQxxxx > AKQxxxxx > Any/all of the above? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ................................................................................. > Grattan, > Sorry-this fell through a crack.I would say all > of them qualify as a "solid suit".But not,say, six > to the ace,king,queen. > regards > John ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' +=+ Thank you John. The above fits very closely with my understanding. Only the seven card suit to AKQ caused me to think twice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From wrgptfan at gmail.com Sat May 23 19:36:37 2009 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 13:36:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <7571BD50-1A9F-4B3C-8047-E5A04277304C@gmail.com> The definition of a solid suit that I have always used is a suit that if partner is void and the suit breaks as evenly as possible, it will play for no losers. Thus all of your examples would qualify as solid suits. ...Dave Kent Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2009, at 7:13 AM, "Grattan" wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +=+ Subscribers to blml may like to be aware of > the exchange of emails that follows. John is the > chairman of the WBF Systems Committee. > . This does not commit any regulating authority > but represents high ranking WBF opinion. The > object, of course, is always to seek international > consensus. > ... > ... > ...................................................................... > From: "Grattan" > To: "John Wignall" > Cc: "Anna Gudge" > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:09 PM > Subject: Brown sticker exemptions. > >> +=+ Hi John, >> Could I just check with you on the definition of a >> 'solid suit' which would constitute 'an average hand' and >> therefore exempt the convention from Brown Sticker >> categorization. >> AKQJxx >> AKQxxxx >> AKQxxxxx >> Any/all of the above? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > ... > ... > ... > ... > ..................................................................... >> Grattan, >> Sorry-this fell through a crack.I would say all >> of them qualify as a "solid suit".But not,say, six >> to the ace,king,queen. >> regards >> John > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ Thank you John. The above fits very closely > with my understanding. Only the seven card suit to > AKQ caused me to think twice. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun May 24 19:17:16 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 09:17:16 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 Message-ID: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> L16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later. The opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed. The ACBL neither requires nor prohibits the "reserve the right" language, so it's up to the player. L16B3: 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.* ..... * It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. ########### 1. Why do I "reserve the right" to call the TD later? Is that right lost if I don't reserve it? 2. .."if they dispute the fact" implies that the UI has been noted prior to or concurrent with the "reserve the right" announcement. What is the proper procedure? 1) Note the UI, but do not necessarily reserve the right to call the TD, or 2) Just reserve the right and let them guess why, or 3) Note the UI *and* reserve the right I am working on a UI guide for both players and TDs. It currently assumes that if the UI is noted, the reference to a later TD call should be included. They go together, both or neither, if I am interpreting the law right. Needed is a generic formula for handling the situation without sounding accusatory, something like this: "[description of UI action] seemed rather [slow] [fast] [inappropriate]. I'm not suggesting that anything is wrong, but we may need the Director at the end of play." If everyone uses the formula, perhaps suggested by the RA, opponents should have no objection to its wording. No further talk is necessary. If the opponents deny the UI, they should call the TD immediately, but the other side is not required to tell them that and should not call the TD themselveds. Indeed, the only further comment by the other side should be: "Let's continue with the deal, please." The UI guide will say, however, that if a player disagrees about the UI, s/he should call the TD immediately. Failure to do so may jeopardize a later denial of its existence. The TD may rightly say, "If you disagreed, why didn't you call me?" The guide will emphasize that the word "may" in L16B2 means that taking notice of the UI at the time it is created is not mandatory or even strongly suggested. Players must decide the matter as they wish, perhaps being willing to risk losing redress (stale UI is harder to determine than fresh UI) in order to save time and preserve harmony. After all, most UI does not lead to damage. A compromise approach is made possible by the footnote to L16B3, which is to call the TD when a suspicious action is taken following the UI instead of waiting until the end of play. Since the TD can do nothing at that time, it serves no purpose and can cause hard feelings.While not an infraction, it doesn't follow the procedure specified in the two laws, making it an irregularity that should be mildly discouraged. A prominent London TD might say, "Why are you wasting my time?" Suggestions would be welcome, Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun May 24 19:54:26 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 12:54:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 In-Reply-To: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com> I will be interesting in the replies on this thread. I have a few comments: 1. There are several cases documented in the ACBL casebooks where failure to call at just the right moment trashed your rights. This is unfortunate. 2. The sentence "It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later" sounds to me like it means whatever the director wants it to mean. Not being an infraction is hardly helpful if improper (in the director's eyes) direct-call timing forfeits any chance of redress. 3. Now that the ACBL has no chief tournament director, I fear that you have to know your director to know the best timing and wording of your actions. 4. I hope Marv's attempt to standardize the procedure succeeds. The lack of any agreed upon procedure has caused unnecessary pain in the past. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Sun May 24 20:04:18 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 20:04:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 In-Reply-To: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001201c9dc9a$0f207730$2d616590$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Marvin L French > Sent: 24. mai 2009 19:17 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 > > L16B2: > > When a player considers that an opponent has made such information > available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless > prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the > Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the > Director later. The opponents should summon the Director immediately > if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have > been conveyed. > > The ACBL neither requires nor prohibits the "reserve the right" > language, so it's up to the player. > > L16B3: > > 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.* ..... > > * It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. > > ########### > > 1. Why do I "reserve the right" to call the TD later? Is that right > lost if I don't reserve it? > 2. .."if they dispute the fact" implies that the UI has been noted > prior to or concurrent with the "reserve the right" announcement. > > What is the proper procedure? This is mainly a matter of securing evidence, i.e. to establish the fact that extraneous information may have been passed (if that is the situation). A common procedure when there has for instance been a break in tempo is to say something like: "Do we agree that there was a hesitation here?" In Norway such a statement is considered equivalent to "reserving the right to eventually call the Director", and if opponents disagree with the "allegation" then the Director is to be called immediately. If out of a clear blue sky a player at the end of play alleges that there was a break in tempo during the auction or early in the play and opponents disagree, then facts will be extremely difficult to establish. It is for this purpose that we in Norway recommend players to establish agreements on facts immediately, but only call the Director when (and if) a ruling is needed. I assume after this that I may snip the rest of the post? Regards Sven From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sun May 24 21:45:51 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 20:45:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 In-Reply-To: <001201c9dc9a$0f207730$2d616590$@no> References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <001201c9dc9a$0f207730$2d616590$@no> Message-ID: <4A19A3EF.1010103@talktalk.net> [Sven Pran] If out of a clear blue sky a player at the end of play alleges that there was a break in tempo during the auction or early in the play and opponents disagree, then facts will be extremely difficult to establish. It is for this purpose that we in Norway recommend players to establish agreements on facts immediately, but only call the Director when (and if) a ruling is needed. [Nigel] In the UK, most players agree with Sven's argument; and follow his recommended protocol. Marvin is right that the current version of L16B3 skates over the fact that, normally - - the *UI* itself is immediately plain. - but *logical alternatives* may not exist. They are usually contentious. And may not be suspected until later. IMO, L16B3 should be revised with no scope for local variation. From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Sun May 24 21:56:52 2009 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 23:56:52 +0400 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <98751243195012@webmail16.yandex.ru> Hi all:) I was taught by my bridge-teacher tens years ago that the best kind of suit is called "full suit": AKQJ10, AKDJxx, AKQxxxx. Such a suit may be bid more than 3 times and does not need fit from partner. Best wishes, Vitold 23.05.09, 15:13, "Grattan" : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +=+ Subscribers to blml may like to be aware of > the exchange of emails that follows. John is the > chairman of the WBF Systems Committee. > . This does not commit any regulating authority > but represents high ranking WBF opinion. The > object, of course, is always to seek international > consensus. > ............................................................................ > From: "Grattan" > To: "John Wignall" > Cc: "Anna Gudge" > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:09 PM > Subject: Brown sticker exemptions. > > +=+ Hi John, > > Could I just check with you on the definition of a > > 'solid suit' which would constitute 'an average hand' and > > therefore exempt the convention from Brown Sticker > > categorization. > > AKQJxx > > AKQxxxx > > AKQxxxxx > > Any/all of the above? > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > ................................................................................. > > Grattan, > > Sorry-this fell through a crack.I would say all > > of them qualify as a "solid suit".But not,say, six > > to the ace,king,queen. > > regards > > John > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ Thank you John. The above fits very closely > with my understanding. Only the seven card suit to > AKQ caused me to think twice. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun May 24 22:24:51 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 12:24:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Jerry Fusselman" >I will be interesting in the replies on this thread. I have a few >comments: > > 1. There are several cases documented in the ACBL casebooks where > failure to call at just the right moment trashed your rights. > This is > unfortunate. This mythical prescribed treatment is also popular with ACBL TDs in regard to MI as well as UI. With L16B2/3 now clearly stating that the matter is normally handled at the end of play, this should no longer happen in a UI case. However, an ACBL TD last week ruled that there would be no redress for me in an MI case because I did not call her when sight of dummy revealed MI, but waited until end of play. I know the reason, which is that they want to take opposing players away from the table and question them before they have a chance to think about it. As a top ACBL TD told me, they hope to trap them into making a self-damaging statement. The Laws should have addressed MI in the same way as UI, including the "end of play" phrase. > > 2. The sentence "It is not an infraction to call the Director > earlier > or later" sounds to me like it means whatever the director wants > it to > mean. Not being an infraction is hardly helpful if improper (in > the > director's eyes) direct-call timing forfeits any chance of > redress. The proper procedure should be encouraged, but evidently that is up to the TD. Mike Flader should cover this in an ACBL Bulletin column, and I will ask him to do so when I finish the UI Guide. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Sun May 24 22:47:47 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 22:47:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 In-Reply-To: <4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com> <4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Marvin L French > Sent: 24. mai 2009 22:25 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] L16B2-3 > > > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > >I will be interesting in the replies on this thread. I have a few > >comments: > > > > 1. There are several cases documented in the ACBL casebooks where > > failure to call at just the right moment trashed your rights. > > This is > > unfortunate. > > This mythical prescribed treatment is also popular with ACBL TDs in > regard to MI as well as UI. With L16B2/3 now clearly stating that > the matter is normally handled at the end of play, this should no > longer happen in a UI case. > > However, an ACBL TD last week ruled that there would be no redress > for me in an MI case because I did not call her when sight of dummy > revealed MI, but waited until end of play. I know the reason, which > is that they want to take opposing players away from the table and > question them before they have a chance to think about it. As a top > ACBL TD told me, they hope to trap them into making a self-damaging > statement. > > The Laws should have addressed MI in the same way as UI, including > the "end of play" phrase. Misinformation is a completely different kettle of fish and not subject to any use of Law 16 at all. (UI to partner from MI given to opponents of course still is). Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 25 00:34:26 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 18:34:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 In-Reply-To: <001201c9dc9a$0f207730$2d616590$@no> References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <001201c9dc9a$0f207730$2d616590$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 May 2009 14:04:18 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of >> Marvin L French >> Sent: 24. mai 2009 19:17 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 >> >> L16B2: >> >> When a player considers that an opponent has made such information >> available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless >> prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the >> Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the >> Director later. The opponents should summon the Director immediately >> if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have >> been conveyed. >> >> The ACBL neither requires nor prohibits the "reserve the right" >> language, so it's up to the player. >> >> L16B3: >> >> 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.* ..... >> >> * It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. >> >> ########### >> >> 1. Why do I "reserve the right" to call the TD later? Is that right >> lost if I don't reserve it? >> 2. .."if they dispute the fact" implies that the UI has been noted >> prior to or concurrent with the "reserve the right" announcement. >> >> What is the proper procedure? > > This is mainly a matter of securing evidence, i.e. to establish the fact > that extraneous information may have been passed (if that is the > situation). > > > A common procedure when there has for instance been a break in tempo is > to > say something like: "Do we agree that there was a hesitation here?" > > In Norway such a statement is considered equivalent to "reserving the > right > to eventually call the Director", and if opponents disagree with the > "allegation" then the Director is to be called immediately. > > If out of a clear blue sky a player at the end of play alleges that there > was a break in tempo during the auction or early in the play and > opponents > disagree, then facts will be extremely difficult to establish. It is for > this purpose that we in Norway recommend players to establish agreements > on > facts immediately, but only call the Director when (and if) a ruling is > needed. > > I assume after this that I may snip the rest of the post? > Agreeing with Sven that it is important to note the hesitation and have the opponents agree. (And anything else can wait until the end as far as I can see.) This all assumes that the players are well-acquainted with L16. If a player isn't, then I need to be called when the hesitation occurs so I can explain to the player what he/she is supposed to do. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon May 25 01:07:39 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 15:07:39 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com><4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP> <001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no> Message-ID: <6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Sven Pran" >> Marvin L French >> >> From: "Jerry Fusselman" >> >> >I will be interesting in the replies on this thread. I have a >> >few >> >comments: >> > >> > 1. There are several cases documented in the ACBL casebooks >> > where >> > failure to call at just the right moment trashed your rights. >> > This is >> > unfortunate. >> >> This mythical prescribed treatment is also popular with ACBL TDs >> in >> regard to MI as well as UI. With L16B2/3 now clearly stating that >> the matter is normally handled at the end of play, this should no >> longer happen in a UI case. >> >> However, an ACBL TD last week ruled that there would be no >> redress >> for me in an MI case because I did not call her when sight of >> dummy >> revealed MI, but waited until end of play. I know the reason, >> which >> is that they want to take opposing players away from the table >> and >> question them before they have a chance to think about it. As a >> top >> ACBL TD told me, they hope to trap them into making a >> self-damaging >> statement. >> >> The Laws should have addressed MI in the same way as UI, >> including >> the "end of play" phrase. > > Misinformation is a completely different kettle of fish and not > subject to > any use of Law 16 at all. (UI to partner from MI given to > opponents of > course still is). > UI is different, yes, and treated separately, but is always a companion to MI. All I want is that when it is too late to change a call or the opening lead, as when dummy's hand shows evidence of possible MI, the TD should be called at end of play . That assumes the opponents don't make the TD call, as they should, when either of them reaizes that MI has been created. The most frequent case is when there has been a failure to Alert a call, as dummy's hand clearly shows. There is generally no need to call the TD until end of play, but ACBL TDs are requiring a call immediately if redress for damage is to be given. That's wrong, and I wish the WBFLC would say so. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon May 25 01:16:51 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 15:16:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <001201c9dc9a$0f207730$2d616590$@no> Message-ID: <9EED6662C98E423484C67BD439F14F8C@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Sven Pran" >> Marvin L French >> >> L16B2: >> >> When a player considers that an opponent has made such >> information >> available and that damage could well result, he may announce, >> unless >> prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that >> the >> Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the >> Director later. The opponents should summon the Director >> immediately >> if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have >> been conveyed. >> >> The ACBL neither requires nor prohibits the "reserve the right" >> language, so it's up to the player. >> >> L16B3: >> >> 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.* ..... >> >> * It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. >> >> ########### >> >> 1. Why do I "reserve the right" to call the TD later? Is that >> right >> lost if I don't reserve it? >> 2. .."if they dispute the fact" implies that the UI has been >> noted >> prior to or concurrent with the "reserve the right" announcement. >> >> What is the proper procedure? > > This is mainly a matter of securing evidence, i.e. to establish > the fact > that extraneous information may have been passed (if that is the > situation). > > A common procedure when there has for instance been a break in > tempo is to > say something like: "Do we agree that there was a hesitation > here?" Agreement is not a requirement of L16B2/3. Bickering about the UI must be avoided. > > In Norway such a statement is considered equivalent to "reserving > the right > to eventually call the Director", and if opponents disagree with > the > "allegation" then the Director is to be called immediately. By whom? L16B2 says by the UI deniers, not by the opponents. In ACBL-land we followed that (unofficial) procedure under the previous Laws, trying to make sense of an ACBL "Elecction." But there is no such Election now, so we must follow L16B2 as-is. > > If out of a clear blue sky a player at the end of play alleges > that there > was a break in tempo during the auction or early in the play and > opponents > disagree, then facts will be extremely difficult to establish. It > is for > this purpose that we in Norway recommend players to establish > agreements on > facts immediately, but only call the Director when (and if) a > ruling is > needed. That makes some sense, but is not the procedure I see in the Laws, which do not entail any discussion about the UI between the two sides. One side says there was UI, and if the other denies it they can call the TD, but the matter should not be argued between the two sides. Let the TD decide on the matter after consulting with both sides, it's his job. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon May 25 02:53:48 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 16:53:48 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP><001201c9dc9a$0f207730$2d616590$@no> Message-ID: <7B3AFA439F9E497997D11EEADD6C6EBF@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Frick" > Agreeing with Sven that it is important to note the hesitation and > have > the opponents agree. (And anything else can wait until the end as > far as I > can see.) Of course TDs would prefer this procedure, as it makes their job much easier. Let the opponents bicker about the UI and hope they resolve the matter without TD help. > > This all assumes that the players are well-acquainted with L16. If > a > player isn't, then I need to be called when the hesitation occurs > so I can > explain to the player what he/she is supposed to do. Well, you won't be called, as the Laws do not require it. Hold a class on L16 for players that need to be educated. I suppose a TD could announce before a game, "If anyone does not know what to do when it is suggested that they may have passed unauthorized information to their partner, please call me to the table." Or post a notice to that effect prominently on the bulletin board. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 25 06:37:55 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 00:37:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 In-Reply-To: <7B3AFA439F9E497997D11EEADD6C6EBF@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <001201c9dc9a$0f207730$2d616590$@no> <7B3AFA439F9E497997D11EEADD6C6EBF@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 May 2009 20:53:48 -0400, Marvin L French wrote: > > From: "Robert Frick" > >> Agreeing with Sven that it is important to note the hesitation and >> have >> the opponents agree. (And anything else can wait until the end as >> far as I >> can see.) > > Of course TDs would prefer this procedure, as it makes their job > much easier. Let the opponents bicker about the UI and hope they > resolve the matter without TD help. It seems you are intentionally dissing all TDs. Am I missing something? My main goal is fair rulings and avoiding conflict and feelings of not being treated fairly. The amount of time it takes to make a ruling is not very relevant. When I am called to the table on a hesitation auction, I verify that there is a hesitation, verify that everyone understands the rules. Then there is nothing for me to to do until the end of the hand. So I leave, telling the "NOS" to call me if they think that UI was used to their disadvantage. If they verify the hesitation and understand the rules, I am redundant. At the end of the hand, the "NOS" usually don't call me. A spot check suggests this is because they weren't disadvantaged. When they do call, the usually call me and present their case. (Then the bickering might start.) >> >> This all assumes that the players are well-acquainted with L16. If >> a >> player isn't, then I need to be called when the hesitation occurs >> so I can >> explain to the player what he/she is supposed to do. > > Well, you won't be called, as the Laws do not require it. Hmmm. The law says you are supposed to call the director at the time, or agree that UI was conveyed. As far as I can tell, experienced players are pretty good about calling me at this time when their less-experienced opponents have created potentially useful UI. I think they don't want their less-experienced opponents to use the UI. (If you call me later and the opps didn't know their L16B1 obligations -- or even maybe they didn't know that there was UI -- then I can't expect them to bend over backwards to not use the UI.) > Hold a > class on L16 for players that need to be educated. > > I suppose a TD could announce before a game, "If anyone does not > know what to do when it is suggested that they may have passed > unauthorized information to their partner, please call me to the > table." Or post a notice to that effect prominently on the bulletin > board. Actually, I have discovered that when a bridge player loses her car keys, no number of announcements will help. However, not being able to get into her car after the game gets her attention. This unfortunately offers no clues to the problem of getting all the cell phones turned off. "Prominently on the bulletin board" is an oxymoron. From svenpran at online.no Mon May 25 10:20:10 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 10:20:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 In-Reply-To: <6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com><4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP> <001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no> <6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000301c9dd11$9f27ad90$dd7708b0$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin L French ..................... > The most frequent case is when there has been a failure to Alert a > call, as dummy's hand clearly shows. There is generally no need to > call the TD until end of play, but ACBL TDs are requiring a call > immediately if redress for damage is to be given. That's wrong, and > I wish the WBFLC would say so. If misinformation is "clearly revealed" by dummy's hand becoming faced and nobody calls attention to this apparent misinformation then either we have a direct violation of Law 20F5(b), or the "misinformation" is not so apparent after all. So when defenders fail to notice any violation of Law 20F5(b) (and do not themselves call the Director for this reason) I shall assume that the later alleged "misinformation" has had little or no effect on their auction. Therefore I shall normally see little cause for any redress. I shall like to hear you on why this is wrong (Law reference please). Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon May 25 11:00:34 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 11:00:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I've not been checkin on BLML for a few days. Too bad to hear about John. Please give my regards to him and wish him all the best, and hopefully a quick recovery. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran 2009/5/21 GORDON RAINSFORD : > > I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not know that John (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and is in the Royal London Hospital. His condition has improved over the last few days and he can now talk a bit, but tires easily and is not well enough for many visitors. However I'm sure he'll welcome messages, either directly to his email address for when he's well enough to access them, or here on the list which I'll undertake to get passed on and read out to him. > > Gordon Rainsford > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 25 12:54:06 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 12:54:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +=+ Subscribers to blml may like to be aware of > the exchange of emails that follows. John is the > chairman of the WBF Systems Committee. > . This does not commit any regulating authority > but represents high ranking WBF opinion. The > object, of course, is always to seek international > consensus. > ............................................................................ > From: "Grattan" > To: "John Wignall" > Cc: "Anna Gudge" > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:09 PM > Subject: Brown sticker exemptions. > > >> +=+ Hi John, >> Could I just check with you on the definition of a >> 'solid suit' which would constitute 'an average hand' and >> therefore exempt the convention from Brown Sticker >> categorization. >> AKQJxx >> AKQxxxx >> AKQxxxxx >> Any/all of the above? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > ................................................................................. > >> Grattan, >> Sorry-this fell through a crack.I would say all >> of them qualify as a "solid suit".But not,say, six >> to the ace,king,queen. >> AKQJxx has about a 9 in 10 chance to run. AKQxxxx has about 3 in 4. The problem is : who are we to put the limit somewhere between those two values ? If a player wants to consider AKQxxxx as solid, we can't disallow him to do so, because it's a matter of judgment and, perhaps, tactics. And if he does so with, say, AKQxxx ? There is a similar problem when considering what a 'stopper' can be. If some bid shows a stopper in LHO's hand (explained as such), can the player hold Qxx ? say the bidding goes 1S X p 2C p 2S p 2NT. The player may reasonably hope RHO won't ever get the lead, in which case he stops the suit. But who can calculate the probability for this ? Of course, in this case, the decision is the player's, and explanations shall take into account partner's tendencies. But here it's a matter of legislation. I think we should define what kind of suit is exempt, rather than use fuzzy qualificatives. Best regards Alain From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon May 25 19:40:09 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 09:40:09 -0800 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com><4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP> <001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no><6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP> <000301c9dd11$9f27ad90$dd7708b0$@no> Message-ID: <79B2352D516F4505A5E34FC874BEA5E4@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of Marvin L French > ..................... >> The most frequent case is when there has been a failure to Alert >> a >> call, as dummy's hand clearly shows. There is generally no need >> to >> call the TD until end of play, but ACBL TDs are requiring a call >> immediately if redress for damage is to be given. That's wrong, >> and >> I wish the WBFLC would say so. > > If misinformation is "clearly revealed" by dummy's hand becoming > faced and > nobody calls attention to this apparent misinformation then either > we have a > direct violation of Law 20F5(b), or the "misinformation" is not so > apparent > after all. It is apparent to a defender but not to the ignorant declarer, who is the one charged with calling the TD. Law20F5(b) does not apply to the defenders. The MI may be revealed only by declarer's hand as play progresses. As a defender, I can only ask for an explanation of the auction, not highlighting a particular bid, without putting my side into a UI position. I'll wait until play is over rather than do that.. > > So when defenders fail to notice any violation of Law 20F5(b) (and > do not > themselves call the Director for this reason) I shall assume that > the later > alleged "misinformation" has had little or no effect on their > auction. > Therefore I shall normally see little cause for any redress. Where is that written, please? As I said, that law applies only to the side guilty of MI. Sorry that I am unable to continue with this thread, as Alice and I are busy getting ready for a flight to Oahu tomorrow morning. I don't believe I have any more to say, anyway. Many thanks to those who have provided comments on this subject. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Mon May 25 23:03:13 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 23:03:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 In-Reply-To: <79B2352D516F4505A5E34FC874BEA5E4@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com><4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP> <001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no><6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP> <000301c9dd11$9f27ad90$dd7708b0$@no> <79B2352D516F4505A5E34FC874BEA5E4@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000001c9dd7c$37a8eab0$a6fac010$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin L French ................... > > If misinformation is "clearly revealed" by dummy's hand becoming > > faced and nobody calls attention to this apparent misinformation > > then either we have a direct violation of Law 20F5(b), or the > > "misinformation" is not so apparent after all. > > It is apparent to a defender but not to the ignorant declarer, who > is the one charged with calling the TD. Law20F5(b) does not apply to > the defenders. > > The MI may be revealed only by declarer's hand as play progresses. I accept (with some doubt) the allegation that declarer or dummy might be ignorant about the misinformation, but I don't see how on earth misinformation can be evident to opponents while not also evident to the declaring side. If a defender feels that misinformation is clearly revealed by dummy's hand becoming faced then he has two distinct possibilities: - He may have misunderstood something so that the alleged misinformation is no misinformation after all. - He may be quite confident that he has been given misinformation In either case he has every reason to get the possible misinformation cleared up and has only himself to blame if he is subsequently damaged by not taking any action to have the alleged misinformation rectified. > > As a defender, I can only ask for an explanation of the auction, not > highlighting a particular bid, without putting my side into a UI > position. I'll wait until play is over rather than do that.. Nothing prevents you as a defender from asking declarer and/or dummy when seeing dummy's cards: "Should some of your disclosure on your agreements be corrected?" or words to that same effect. > > > > So when defenders fail to notice any violation of Law 20F5(b) (and > > do not > > themselves call the Director for this reason) I shall assume that > > the later > > alleged "misinformation" has had little or no effect on their > > auction. > > Therefore I shall normally see little cause for any redress. > > Where is that written, please? As I said, that law applies only to > the side guilty of MI. Where does it say that the Director shall judge on the circumstances presented to him and then rule to his best ability for equity to both sides? > > Sorry that I am unable to continue with this thread, as Alice and I > are busy getting ready for a flight to Oahu tomorrow morning. I > don't believe I have any more to say, anyway. Many thanks to those > who have provided comments on this subject. Have a pleasant trip Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 25 22:42:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 21:42:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. ........................... \x/ ......................... There is a similar problem when considering what a 'stopper' can be. If some bid shows a stopper in LHO's hand (explained as such), can the player hold Qxx ? say the bidding goes 1S X p 2C p 2S p 2NT. The player may reasonably hope RHO won't ever get the lead, in which case he stops the suit. But who can calculate the probability for this ? Of course, in this case, the decision is the player's, and explanations shall take into account partner's tendencies. But here it's a matter of legislation. I think we should define what kind of suit is exempt, rather than use fuzzy qualificatives. +=+ As of now, a matter rather of regulation. Of course my personal hope is to encourage consensus. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 25 23:14:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:14:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com><4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP> <001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no><6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP> <000301c9dd11$9f27ad90$dd7708b0$@no><79B2352D516F4505A5E34FC874BEA5E4@MARVLAPTOP> <000001c9dd7c$37a8eab0$a6fac010$@no> Message-ID: <000901c9dd7d$d39c34d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 10:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L16B2-3 > > Where does it say that the Director shall judge > on the circumstances presented to him and then > rule to his best ability for equity to both sides? > +=+ Do you have in mind Law 85A1 which says rather more than that? +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon May 25 23:32:40 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:32:40 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/26 Grattan > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "The real problem with GM and Chrysler both > is that they are just not competitive." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ? James A. Baker; May 25, 2009. > > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 11:54 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. > > > ........................... ? ?\x/ ? ?......................... > There is a similar problem when considering what a 'stopper' > can be. If some bid shows a stopper in LHO's hand (explained > as such), can the player hold Qxx ? > say the bidding goes 1S X p 2C p 2S p 2NT. The player may > reasonably hope RHO won't ever get the lead, in which case > he stops the suit. But who can calculate the probability for this ? > Of course, in this case, the decision is the player's, and > explanations shall take into account partner's tendencies. > > But here it's a matter of legislation. I think we should define > what kind of suit is exempt, rather than use fuzzy qualificatives. > > +=+ As of now, a matter rather of regulation. Of course my > personal hope is to encourage consensus. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > _______________________________________________ I think it is a mistake to regulate judgement. If someone thinks that AKJxxx or similar is solid that is their problem. If someone else thinks that AKQJTxxx is a minimum solid suit that also is their problem. Of course both of these players or their partners will have an obligation to disclose these tendancies. However we see so many regulatory problems caused by regulations that mandate judgement. This is especially so when the mandate is for judgements that are so close to normal good methods. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From svenpran at online.no Mon May 25 23:38:35 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 23:38:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 In-Reply-To: <000901c9dd7d$d39c34d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com><4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP> <001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no><6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP> <000301c9dd11$9f27ad90$dd7708b0$@no><79B2352D516F4505A5E34FC874BEA5E4@MARVLAPTOP> <000001c9dd7c$37a8eab0$a6fac010$@no> <000901c9dd7d$d39c34d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000b01c9dd81$28690260$793b0720$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 10:03 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L16B2-3 > > > > > > Where does it say that the Director shall judge > > on the circumstances presented to him and then > > rule to his best ability for equity to both sides? > > > +=+ Do you have in mind Law 85A1 which says > rather more than that? +=+ (It was in response to a question from Marvin) Absolutely; but not just Law 85A1. I think that for instance Law 12 is worth some consideration as well Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon May 25 23:42:25 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 23:42:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000c01c9dd81$b1d27810$15776830$@no> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows .................. > I think it is a mistake to regulate judgement. > > If someone thinks that AKJxxx or similar is solid that is their problem. > > If someone else thinks that AKQJTxxx is a minimum solid suit that also > is their problem. > > Of course both of these players or their partners will have an > obligation to disclose these tendancies. > > However we see so many regulatory problems caused by regulations that > mandate judgement. This is especially so when the mandate is for > judgements that are so close to normal good methods. I don't think that we can avoid regulations on judgements. About every regulation on permissible system agreements contains specifications that boil down to the result of somebody's judgement. And I cannot see any alternative. Regards Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue May 26 10:30:21 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:30:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <000c01c9dd81$b1d27810$15776830$@no> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> <000c01c9dd81$b1d27810$15776830$@no> Message-ID: 2009/5/25 Sven Pran : > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > .................. >> I think it is a mistake to regulate judgement. >> >> If someone thinks that AKJxxx or similar is solid that is their problem. >> >> If someone else thinks that AKQJTxxx is a minimum solid suit that also >> is their problem. >> >> Of course both of these players or their partners will have an >> obligation to disclose these tendancies. >> >> However we see so many regulatory problems caused by regulations that >> mandate judgement. ?This is especially so when the mandate is for >> judgements that are so close to normal good methods. > > I don't think that we can avoid regulations on judgements. About every > regulation on permissible system agreements contains specifications that > boil down to the result of somebody's judgement. And I cannot see any > alternative. If system regulations allow for example a 4m opening promising a solid major suit, the minimum suit quality should be defined in the regulation. Thus no judgement would be allowed; either the suit quality is acceptable or it's not. We need no regulation as to suit quality in general. But proper disclosure is of course needed. > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Tue May 26 11:07:32 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:07:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> <000c01c9dd81$b1d27810$15776830$@no> Message-ID: <000301c9dde1$673f46b0$35bdd410$@no> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran > Sven Pran > > > > I don't think that we can avoid regulations on judgements. About every > > regulation on permissible system agreements contains specifications that > > boil down to the result of somebody's judgement. And I cannot see any > > alternative. > > If system regulations allow for example a 4m opening promising a solid > major suit, the minimum suit quality should be defined in the > regulation. Thus no judgement would be allowed; either the suit > quality is acceptable or it's not. > > We need no regulation as to suit quality in general. But proper > disclosure is of course needed. I may have expressed myself poorly and I don't believe there is any disagreement between Harald and me: When I wrote "the result of somebody's judgment" "somebody" referred to those who wrote the regulation, not those who would apply it. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 26 11:36:55 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:36:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <000c01c9dd81$b1d27810$15776830$@no> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> <000c01c9dd81$b1d27810$15776830$@no> Message-ID: <4A1BB837.8020104@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > .................. > >> I think it is a mistake to regulate judgement. >> >> If someone thinks that AKJxxx or similar is solid that is their problem. >> >> If someone else thinks that AKQJTxxx is a minimum solid suit that also >> is their problem. >> >> Of course both of these players or their partners will have an >> obligation to disclose these tendancies. >> >> However we see so many regulatory problems caused by regulations that >> mandate judgement. This is especially so when the mandate is for >> judgements that are so close to normal good methods. >> > > I don't think that we can avoid regulations on judgements. About every > regulation on permissible system agreements contains specifications that > boil down to the result of somebody's judgement. And I cannot see any > alternative. > AG : of course there is. Less regulations on permissible systems. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 26 11:36:12 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:36:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A1BB80C.9080809@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > 2009/5/26 Grattan > >> Grattan Endicott> also > ********************************** >> "The real problem with GM and Chrysler both >> is that they are just not competitive." >> ~ James A. Baker; May 25, 2009. >> >> ********************************** >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 11:54 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. >> >> >> ........................... \x/ ......................... >> There is a similar problem when considering what a 'stopper' >> can be. If some bid shows a stopper in LHO's hand (explained >> as such), can the player hold Qxx ? >> say the bidding goes 1S X p 2C p 2S p 2NT. The player may >> reasonably hope RHO won't ever get the lead, in which case >> he stops the suit. But who can calculate the probability for this ? >> Of course, in this case, the decision is the player's, and >> explanations shall take into account partner's tendencies. >> >> But here it's a matter of legislation. I think we should define >> what kind of suit is exempt, rather than use fuzzy qualificatives. >> >> +=+ As of now, a matter rather of regulation. Of course my >> personal hope is to encourage consensus. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> _______________________________________________ >> > > I think it is a mistake to regulate judgement. > > If someone thinks that AKJxxx or similar is solid that is their problem. > > If someone else thinks that AKQJTxxx is a minimum solid suit that also > is their problem. > AG : if someone thinks Axxxxxx is ... ? Where will you put the limit between judgement and a try to circumvent the BSC regulations ? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 26 12:54:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:54:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be><000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred><2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> <4A1BB80C.9080809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01c9ddf0$4da63ec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. > I think it is a mistake to regulate judgement. > > If someone thinks that AKJxxx or similar is solid that is their problem. > Where will you put the limit between judgement and a try to circumvent the BSC regulations ? < +=+ Players are entitled to their bridge judgements. If a player wishes to regard AKJxxx or AKJxxxx as a solid suit, so be it. But a hand that contains such a suit will not qualify under the WBF Systems Policy for exemption from BS categorization unless it has the additional values that the Policy stipulates. The WBF is entitled to define the meaning of its terms for the purposes of regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue May 26 13:05:35 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:05:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <4A1BB837.8020104@ulb.ac.be> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> <000c01c9dd81$b1d27810$15776830$@no> <4A1BB837.8020104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A1BCCFF.5030901@talktalk.net> [Sven Pran] I don't think that we can avoid regulations on judgements. About every regulation on permissible system agreements contains specifications that boil down to the result of somebody's judgement. And I cannot see any alternative. [Alain Gottcheiner] of course there is. Less regulations on permissible systems. [Nige1] IMO AKQ832 *could* have no losers opposite a void but is it a *solid* suit? It is possible to define system requirements fairly rigorously in terms of suit lengths and high cards (preferably Milton Work HCP). Some players advocate different (and arguably better evaluation methods -- like David Burn who places a high value on *85* combinations) but the rules should insist that they translate arcana into terms intelligible to the rest of us. In this area of the law, there is no necessity to rely on judgement. In general, I think Alain is right. The rules of Bridge will always need subjective judgement, but it should be kept to a minimum. There should be 2 levels of competition: *simple system* and *anything goes*. All the current intermediate levels, locally defined, are a wet-dream for secretary birds but a nightmare for ordinary players. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue May 26 14:54:46 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 13:54:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <4A1BCCFF.5030901@talktalk.net> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> <000c01c9dd81$b1d27810$15776830$@no> <4A1BB837.8020104@ulb.ac.be> <4A1BCCFF.5030901@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000c01c9de01$2651fa10$72f5ee30$@com> [Nige1] AKQ832 *could* have no losers opposite a void but is it a *solid* suit? [DALB] It's worse than that. Whatever regulations these are (I have not been paying attention), they may just have classified AKJ982 as a solid suit. David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 26 19:36:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 18:36:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> <000c01c9dd81$b1d27810$15776830$@no> <4A1BB837.8020104@ulb.ac.be><4A1BCCFF.5030901@talktalk.net> <000c01c9de01$2651fa10$72f5ee30$@com> Message-ID: <002401c9de28$7f6abed0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. > [Nige1] > AKQ832 *could* have no losers opposite a void but is it > a *solid* suit? > > [DALB] > > It's worse than that. Whatever regulations these are (I have > not been paying attention), they may just have classified > AKJ982 as a solid suit. > [GE} +=+ In reply to an off-blml enquiry the following is the information I have given, referring to WBF Systems Policy, after consulting John Wignall. "A bid showing a solid suit is considered to qualify as an average hand. John Wignall, Chair of the WBF Systems Committee agrees that the following are solid suits: AKQJxx, AKQxxxx, and AKQxxxxx. AKQxxx does NOT qualify (nor does AKJxxxx(x)." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 26 21:45:01 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 15:45:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <002401c9de28$7f6abed0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> <000c01c9dd81$b1d27810$15776830$@no> <4A1BB837.8020104@ulb.ac.be><4A1BCCFF.5030901@talktalk.net> <000c01c9de01$2651fa10$72f5ee30$@com> <002401c9de28$7f6abed0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2BAFC9B4-E198-40AE-A276-1D1D887712D7@starpower.net> On May 26, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ In reply to an off-blml enquiry the following is the > information I have given, referring to WBF Systems Policy, > after consulting John Wignall. > "A bid showing a solid suit is considered to qualify as > an average hand. > John Wignall, Chair of the WBF Systems Committee > agrees that the following are solid suits: AKQJxx, AKQxxxx, > and AKQxxxxx. > AKQxxx does NOT qualify (nor does AKJxxxx(x)." That sounds like a solid suit may be characterized as one that will run opposite a void if it breaks evenly in the opponents' hands, or, equivalently, as one that will run opposite a singleton given the most likely split with honors long. That would be consistent with all the above. That would make the weakest "solid suit" not covered in Grattan's examples AK8765432. Does that wash? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 27 09:17:20 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:17:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <002401c9de28$7f6abed0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> <000c01c9dd81$b1d27810$15776830$@no> <4A1BB837.8020104@ulb.ac.be><4A1BCCFF.5030901@talktalk.net> <000c01c9de01$2651fa10$72f5ee30$@com> <002401c9de28$7f6abed0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A1CE900.4020801@skynet.be> If the sentences below are to be used as guidelines, then one should streamline them: I believe there is no need to list AKQxxxxx if one already accepts AJQxxxx. Nor is there any need to list the brackets around AKJxxxx(x). If eight is not enough, then seven certainly is not. I would, however, include (if one accepts that) AKxxxxxxx. Herman. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "Some said 'John, print it', others said 'Not so'. > Some said 'It might do good', others said 'No'. > [ Pilgrim's Progress > Apology for his book.] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:54 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. > > >> [Nige1] >> AKQ832 *could* have no losers opposite a void but is it >> a *solid* suit? >> >> [DALB] >> >> It's worse than that. Whatever regulations these are (I have >> not been paying attention), they may just have classified >> AKJ982 as a solid suit. >> > [GE} > +=+ In reply to an off-blml enquiry the following is the > information I have given, referring to WBF Systems Policy, > after consulting John Wignall. > "A bid showing a solid suit is considered to qualify as > an average hand. > John Wignall, Chair of the WBF Systems Committee > agrees that the following are solid suits: AKQJxx, AKQxxxx, > and AKQxxxxx. > AKQxxx does NOT qualify (nor does AKJxxxx(x)." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed May 27 15:19:48 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:19:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> I was hoping that someone could clarify when the "solid suit exemption" is operant. Many (if not most) of the example hands that are describing a "solid suit" include: an Ace a King a Queen and a Jack By definition, these hands would seem to qualify as being of "average" strength. Its unclear to me whether the solid suit exemption is an exemption to the "average strength" requirements or, alternatively, the "a king or more over average strength" language On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > ?Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +=+ Subscribers to blml may like to be aware of > the exchange of emails that follows. ?John is the > chairman of the WBF Systems Committee. > . ? ? ?This does not commit any regulating authority > but represents high ranking WBF opinion. The > object, of course, is always to seek international > consensus. > ............................................................................ > From: "Grattan" > To: "John Wignall" > Cc: "Anna Gudge" > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:09 PM > Subject: Brown sticker exemptions. > >> +=+ Hi John, >> ? ? ? ?Could I just check with you on the definition of a >> 'solid suit' which would constitute 'an average hand' and >> therefore exempt the convention from Brown Sticker >> categorization. >> ? ? ? ?AKQJxx >> ? ? ? ?AKQxxxx >> ? ? ? ?AKQxxxxx >> Any/all of the above? >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ?+=+ >> > ................................................................................. >> Grattan, >> Sorry-this fell through a crack.I would say all >> of them qualify as a "solid suit".But not,say, six >> to the ace,king,queen. >> regards >> John > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ Thank you John. ?The above fits very closely > with my understanding. ?Only the seven card suit to > AKQ caused me to think twice. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ?+=+ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 27 17:00:19 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:00:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A1D5583.7000000@ulb.ac.be> richard willey a ?crit : > I was hoping that someone could clarify when the "solid suit > exemption" is operant. > > Many (if not most) of the example hands that are describing a "solid > suit" include: > > an Ace > a King > a Queen and > a Jack > > By definition, these hands would seem to qualify as being of "average" strength. > > Its unclear to me whether the solid suit exemption is an exemption to the > > "average strength" requirements or, alternatively, the > "a king or more over average strength" language > AG : anyway, I'm at odds with this criterion. An opening 2C, showing "any major/minor two-suiter in the 13-15 range" is surely more difficult to tackle than an opening 2C, showing "either 6D or 6H, 9-12 range" (two live cases) . Yet the former is allowed, and the latter is BSC. Seems like the complexity criteria need a refresh. Or another example : tell me why 1S (showing a weak NT, another live example) would be more difficult to tackle than a weak NT or a 1D opening with the same meaning. Or why 1D showing either 5D or 5S (yellow) is more difficult to tackle than 1D showing either 5D or 5C (plausible by elimination in some strong club settings, and allowed as such). But addressing your question : no, a solid suit isn't per se "a king above average", and I don't see why there should be an exemption. ISTM 3NT (or something else) to show a solid suit was allowed because it's more or less classical. Of course, had our present regulations be in force before, this would never have been the case. Best regards Alain From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed May 27 17:29:23 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 03:29:23 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560905270829t6c58478eo97354e7b4810b228@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/28 richard willey : > I was hoping that someone could clarify when the "solid suit > exemption" is operant. > > Many (if not most) of the example hands that are describing a "solid > suit" include: > > an Ace > a King > a Queen and > a Jack > > By definition, these hands would seem to qualify as being of "average" strength. > > Its unclear to me whether the solid suit exemption is an exemption to the > > "average strength" requirements or, alternatively, the > "a king or more over average strength" language > As far as I can tell the hands being discussed are above average strength as an "average hand" is specifically defined as "a hand containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional values". It is implicit in that definition that a hand with 10 Milton Work Points AND some distributional values is considered above average and that some hands with fewer than 10 Milton Work Points AND some distributional values would also be considered to be not below an "average hand". Although that later group may be defined as "weak" since the definition of "weak" pertains only to the "high card strength" of a hand. It seems absurd to me that a hand containing a solid suit or even not a solid suit would meet this definition of "weak" when a similar hand with a spurious short jack or queen would fall outside the regulation. That is an opening on AKJxxx xxx xxx x would be restricted but AKJxxx xxx xxx Q having the high card strength of the "average hand" would be not restricted or even one with two side jacks - AKJxxx Jxx Jxx x. When the intention is simply to show the strong suit. Curiously the Brown Sticker Convention and Treatment regulation seems to contain an alternative and contradictory definition of "weak" by way of a parenthetical comment "could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength)" which is subtly different from the definition of "weak" earlier in the regulations "high card strength below that of an average hand". "high card strength" is replaced by "values" but the definition of "average hand" notes that "values" maybe "distribution" not only "high cards". As far as I can see the problems with interpretation come from an inadequate definition of "average hand" whereby a hand that is decidely below average strength is defined as an "average hand". That is the "average hand" definition uses a 4-3-3-3 10 count as average. The average trick taking potential of a hand is 13/4 tricks. While that is not well defined since some tricks can be taken at will in one hand or another it does not seem reasonable to define a hand with expectation of taking considerably more than 13/4 tricks as weak. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 27 18:12:03 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:12:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560905270829t6c58478eo97354e7b4810b228@mail.gmail.com> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560905270829t6c58478eo97354e7b4810b228@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A1D6653.5060605@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > > As far as I can see the problems with interpretation come from an > inadequate definition of "average hand" whereby a hand that is > decidely below average strength is defined as an "average hand". That > is the "average hand" definition uses a 4-3-3-3 10 count as average. > > The average trick taking potential of a hand is 13/4 tricks. Nope. The average trick taking potential of a hand is about 4.8 tricks. The total strengths of 4 hands, each playing in their own trump suit with an average amount of fit, is significantly above 13. eg the following hand : AJxxx - x - Q9x - K10xx, with 1/4 of the deck, moderately unbalanced, moderate concentration etc. -a truly average hand- is worth nearly 5 tricks, not 3.25. > While > that is not well defined since some tricks can be taken at will in one > hand or another it does not seem reasonable to define a hand with > expectation of taking considerably more than 13/4 tricks as weak. > AG : I could agree with your principle, but please change 13/4 to 5. This hand : QJ10987 - xx - xx - xxx takes more than 3.25 tricks (4 to be precise) and it IS weak, or I missed something. Best regards Alain From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed May 27 18:32:26 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 04:32:26 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <4A1BB80C.9080809@ulb.ac.be> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> <4A1BB80C.9080809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560905270932j59235afcq51073b4d5a54f2b5@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/26 Alain Gottcheiner : > Wayne Burrows a ?crit : >> 2009/5/26 Grattan >> >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ********************************** >>> "The real problem with GM and Chrysler both >>> is that they are just not competitive." >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ? James A. Baker; May 25, 2009. >>> >>> ********************************** >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 11:54 AM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. >>> >>> >>> ........................... ? ?\x/ ? ?......................... >>> There is a similar problem when considering what a 'stopper' >>> can be. If some bid shows a stopper in LHO's hand (explained >>> as such), can the player hold Qxx ? >>> say the bidding goes 1S X p 2C p 2S p 2NT. The player may >>> reasonably hope RHO won't ever get the lead, in which case >>> he stops the suit. But who can calculate the probability for this ? >>> Of course, in this case, the decision is the player's, and >>> explanations shall take into account partner's tendencies. >>> >>> But here it's a matter of legislation. I think we should define >>> what kind of suit is exempt, rather than use fuzzy qualificatives. >>> >>> +=+ As of now, a matter rather of regulation. Of course my >>> personal hope is to encourage consensus. >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> I think it is a mistake to regulate judgement. >> >> If someone thinks that AKJxxx or similar is solid that is their problem. >> >> If someone else thinks that AKQJTxxx is a minimum solid suit that also >> is their problem. >> > > AG : if someone thinks Axxxxxx is ... ? > Where will you put the limit between judgement and a try to circumvent > the BSC regulations ? > _______________________________________________ If this is disclosed as a solid suit then it seems like particularly bad judgement to me. I am in favour of allowing my opponents to use their bad judgement. To me it seems best if the boundaries imposed by regulation are sufficiently distant from normal practices so as to not restrict normal judgement. Not on BSC but on the related HUM we had the situation in Beijing where Helgemo opened 1H on a balanced 7 HCP hand where the regulations defined such an opening by partnership agreement to be a HUM and HUMs were not allowed. Even after a long thread here I do not know whether this practice if by partnership agreement is allowed or not. However we create an unpalatable situation when the regulation ("king or more below average strength") is, in this case, so close or overlapping normal expert practice of light openings in third seat. Particularly so if the regulation is not rigidly enforced so that we have some players flouting the regulation while other players disadvantage themselves by adhering rigidly to the words of the regulation. To make it clear I have no idea whether Helgemo's 1H was an illegal undisclosed perhaps implicit partnership understanding as suggested by one Norweigan spectator who said something like "they do that in Norway" or whether it was a legitimate departure from his explicit partnership agreements. The attitudes of many players ('its just bridge') means that many of these sorts departures go unreported so it is often impossible if attention is ever drawn to these at the table anomolies to determine with any confidence whether the regulations have been violated. It is impossible to determine (or often will be) where the boundary lies between 'exercising judgement' and 'flouting the regulation'. For this to not be a serious practical flaw the boundaries need to be both rigid and plain to everyone and distant from normal practice. So that there is room for players to exercise their bad judgement. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed May 27 19:27:17 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 05:27:17 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <4A1D6653.5060605@ulb.ac.be> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560905270829t6c58478eo97354e7b4810b228@mail.gmail.com> <4A1D6653.5060605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560905271027l261794cdw76c8719b7e7d9048@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/28 Alain Gottcheiner : > Wayne Burrows a ?crit : >> >> As far as I can see the problems with interpretation come from an >> inadequate definition of "average hand" whereby a hand that is >> decidely below average strength is defined as an "average hand". ?That >> is the "average hand" definition uses a 4-3-3-3 10 count as average. >> >> The average trick taking potential of a hand is 13/4 tricks. > Nope. The average trick taking potential of a hand is about 4.8 tricks. > The total strengths of 4 hands, each playing in their own trump suit > with an average amount of fit, is significantly above 13. > eg the following hand : AJxxx - x - Q9x - K10xx, with 1/4 of the deck, > moderately unbalanced, moderate concentration etc. -a truly average > hand- ?is worth nearly 5 tricks, not 3.25. > >> ?While >> that is not well defined since some tricks can be taken at will in one >> hand or another it does not seem reasonable to define a hand with >> expectation of taking considerably more than 13/4 tricks as weak. >> > AG : I could agree with your principle, but please change 13/4 to 5. > > This hand : QJ10987 - xx - xx - xxx takes more than 3.25 tricks (4 to be > precise) and it IS weak, or I missed something. > > Best regards > > ?Alain > Yes I should have said in a named denomination. The 'weak' hand that you gave is above average in its trick taking potential in spades. A small simulation suggest the average ten HCP hand takes around 8.3 - 8.4 double dummy tricks in the best (most tricks) denomination. The WBF regulation "average hand" takes 8.0 - 8.1 tricks in a similar simulation. A hand with six spades (or infact any six-card suit) and no hcp outside spades takes 8.0 - 8.1 tricks in a similar simulation. Since this hand averages 6/13 * 10 HCP this means that the WBF regulation "average hand" takes about as many tricks as a 4-5 HCP hand with a six-card suit (and concentrated values). AKJxxx and out takes around 8.7 tricks. This is significantly more than the WBF regulation "average hand". These numbers suggest that the average trick taking potential of a hand is little less than that what Alain suggested. In this simulation around 4.2 offensive tricks for each of the two hands in the partnership. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 27 21:46:14 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 20:46:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. I was hoping that someone could clarify when the "solid suit exemption" is operant. Many (if not most) of the example hands that are describing a "solid suit" include: an Ace a King a Queen and a Jack **[no - read on - GE]** By definition, these hands would seem to qualify as being of "average" strength. Its unclear to me whether the solid suit exemption is an exemption to the "average strength" requirements or, alternatively, the "a king or more over average strength" language ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' +=+ The following is an extract from the WBF Systems Policy:- "The following conventions are categorized as 'Brown Sticker': (a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that (i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength) AND (ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. EXCEPTION: The bid always shows at least four cards in a known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four card suit it must show a hand a King or more over average strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand with a King or more above average strength, it is not a Brown Sticker convention.) EXCEPTION: A two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below. " (b) etc. ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' The Systems Committee decided that a solid suit is deemed a hand of average strength for the purposes of (a)(i) above. My recent exchange with the Committee Chairman was for the purpose of refining the understood meaning of 'a solid suit'. All of the cases agreed contained the AKQ of the suit. In the case of a six card suit it was agreed the J must also be present. Suits headed AKJ or AQJ are not 'solid'. But I do agree, and although not discussed I am confident John Wignall would agree, that by extension of the principle a nine card suit headed AK would be acceptable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +=+ Subscribers to blml may like to be aware of > the exchange of emails that follows. John is the > chairman of the WBF Systems Committee. > . This does not commit any regulating authority > but represents high ranking WBF opinion. The > object, of course, is always to seek international > consensus. > ............................................................................ > From: "Grattan" > To: "John Wignall" > Cc: "Anna Gudge" > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:09 PM > Subject: Brown sticker exemptions. > >> +=+ Hi John, >> Could I just check with you on the definition of a >> 'solid suit' which would constitute 'an average hand' and >> therefore exempt the convention from Brown Sticker >> categorization. >> AKQJxx >> AKQxxxx >> AKQxxxxx >> Any/all of the above? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > ................................................................................. >> Grattan, >> Sorry-this fell through a crack.I would say all >> of them qualify as a "solid suit".But not,say, six >> to the ace,king,queen. >> regards >> John > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ Thank you John. The above fits very closely > with my understanding. Only the seven card suit to > AKQ caused me to think twice. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed May 27 23:10:54 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:10:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> <000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0905271410x66c4eb10s412d70b0d4737478@mail.gmail.com> Hi Grattan Thanks for the reply. I must admit that I am still a bit confused. I would think that a hand like the following AT63 K952 Q84 J7 would be considered an "average" hand. Furthermore, I would think that most any hand that includes an A, a King, a Queen, and a Jack would also be considered of average strength. I don't understand the desire / need to "special case" hands like AKQJxx xxx xxx xx under the (unwritten) solid suit exception when they would seem to fall more naturally under the documented "average strength" clause. Admittedly, this doesn't hold true for hands like AKQxxxx xxx xxx x Here, it seems more appropriate to introduce the solid suit exception. Personally, I would prefer see regulations written using some kind of trick taking perspective like the approach that Wayne suggested earlier in this same thread. I think that this type of standard would permit a much more simple rules set (though said rules would have a dependency on some external algorithm) -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 27 21:46:14 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 20:46:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201c9df12$7db662c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. I was hoping that someone could clarify when the "solid suit exemption" is operant. Many (if not most) of the example hands that are describing a "solid suit" include: an Ace a King a Queen and a Jack **[no - read on - GE]** By definition, these hands would seem to qualify as being of "average" strength. Its unclear to me whether the solid suit exemption is an exemption to the "average strength" requirements or, alternatively, the "a king or more over average strength" language ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' +=+ The following is an extract from the WBF Systems Policy:- "The following conventions are categorized as 'Brown Sticker': (a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that (i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength) AND (ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. EXCEPTION: The bid always shows at least four cards in a known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four card suit it must show a hand a King or more over average strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand with a King or more above average strength, it is not a Brown Sticker convention.) EXCEPTION: A two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below. " (b) etc. ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' The Systems Committee decided that a solid suit is deemed a hand of average strength for the purposes of (a)(i) above. My recent exchange with the Committee Chairman was for the purpose of refining the understood meaning of 'a solid suit'. All of the cases agreed contained the AKQ of the suit. In the case of a six card suit it was agreed the J must also be present. Suits headed AKJ or AQJ are not 'solid'. But I do agree, and although not discussed I am confident John Wignall would agree, that by extension of the principle a nine card suit headed AK would be acceptable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "When deciding how much to tell > Penelope uses her indiscretion." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +=+ Subscribers to blml may like to be aware of > the exchange of emails that follows. John is the > chairman of the WBF Systems Committee. > . This does not commit any regulating authority > but represents high ranking WBF opinion. The > object, of course, is always to seek international > consensus. > ............................................................................ > From: "Grattan" > To: "John Wignall" > Cc: "Anna Gudge" > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:09 PM > Subject: Brown sticker exemptions. > >> +=+ Hi John, >> Could I just check with you on the definition of a >> 'solid suit' which would constitute 'an average hand' and >> therefore exempt the convention from Brown Sticker >> categorization. >> AKQJxx >> AKQxxxx >> AKQxxxxx >> Any/all of the above? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > ................................................................................. >> Grattan, >> Sorry-this fell through a crack.I would say all >> of them qualify as a "solid suit".But not,say, six >> to the ace,king,queen. >> regards >> John > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ Thank you John. The above fits very closely > with my understanding. Only the seven card suit to > AKQ caused me to think twice. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 28 09:34:36 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 08:34:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred><2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com><000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905271410x66c4eb10s412d70b0d4737478@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001201c9df66$c3e47f80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. > Hi Grattan > > Thanks for the reply. I must admit that I am still a bit confused. > > I would think that a hand like the following > > AT63 > K952 > Q84 > J7 > > would be considered an "average" hand. > > Furthermore, I would think that most any hand that includes an A, a > King, a Queen, and a Jack would also be considered of average > strength. I don't understand the desire / need to "special case" > hands like > +=+ The WBF Systems Policy states that an average hand is one "containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional values". So the hand above meets the definition. What we are about in the matter of solid suits is a definition of distributional values that exempt hands with only nine HCP from BS categorization. What we are saying about six card suits is that in our view they do not qualify for inclusion with average hands without the J. . ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 28 10:55:52 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:55:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560905270932j59235afcq51073b4d5a54f2b5@mail.gmail.com> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1A78CE.6020708@ulb.ac.be> <000201c9dd7d$01967d60$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560905251432l5ba1e628yf9f7665d6925af50@mail.gmail.com> <4A1BB80C.9080809@ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560905270932j59235afcq51073b4d5a54f2b5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A1E5198.20300@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > 2009/5/26 Alain Gottcheiner : > >> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : >> >>> 2009/5/26 Grattan >>> >>> >>>> Grattan Endicott>>> also >>> ********************************** >>>> "The real problem with GM and Chrysler both >>>> is that they are just not competitive." >>>> ~ James A. Baker; May 25, 2009. >>>> >>>> ********************************** >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 11:54 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. >>>> >>>> >>>> ........................... \x/ ......................... >>>> There is a similar problem when considering what a 'stopper' >>>> can be. If some bid shows a stopper in LHO's hand (explained >>>> as such), can the player hold Qxx ? >>>> say the bidding goes 1S X p 2C p 2S p 2NT. The player may >>>> reasonably hope RHO won't ever get the lead, in which case >>>> he stops the suit. But who can calculate the probability for this ? >>>> Of course, in this case, the decision is the player's, and >>>> explanations shall take into account partner's tendencies. >>>> >>>> But here it's a matter of legislation. I think we should define >>>> what kind of suit is exempt, rather than use fuzzy qualificatives. >>>> >>>> +=+ As of now, a matter rather of regulation. Of course my >>>> personal hope is to encourage consensus. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>> I think it is a mistake to regulate judgement. >>> >>> If someone thinks that AKJxxx or similar is solid that is their problem. >>> >>> If someone else thinks that AKQJTxxx is a minimum solid suit that also >>> is their problem. >>> >>> >> AG : if someone thinks Axxxxxx is ... ? >> Where will you put the limit between judgement and a try to circumvent >> the BSC regulations ? >> _______________________________________________ >> > > If this is disclosed as a solid suit then it seems like particularly > bad judgement to me. I am in favour of allowing my opponents to use > their bad judgement. > > But what if they pretend it is, while knowing it isn't, in order to use their favorite convention ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 28 10:57:43 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:57:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560905271027l261794cdw76c8719b7e7d9048@mail.gmail.com> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560905270829t6c58478eo97354e7b4810b228@mail.gmail.com> <4A1D6653.5060605@ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560905271027l261794cdw76c8719b7e7d9048@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A1E5207.8080503@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > A small simulation suggest the average ten HCP hand takes around 8.3 - > 8.4 double dummy tricks in the best (most tricks) denomination. > > The WBF regulation "average hand" takes 8.0 - 8.1 tricks in a similar > simulation. > > A hand with six spades (or infact any six-card suit) and no hcp > outside spades takes 8.0 - 8.1 tricks in a similar simulation. Since > this hand averages 6/13 * 10 HCP this means that the WBF regulation > "average hand" takes about as many tricks as a 4-5 HCP hand with a > six-card suit (and concentrated values). > > AKJxxx and out takes around 8.7 tricks. This is significantly more > than the WBF regulation "average hand". > > These numbers suggest that the average trick taking potential of a > hand is little less than that what Alain suggested. In this > simulation around 4.2 offensive tricks for each of the two hands in > the partnership. > > > AG : not quite. Your 8.4 tricks average are made of 4.8 from the hand and 3.6 from the opposite hand. Remember we take as trumps the long suit of the hand we see. From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu May 28 11:02:23 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 21:02:23 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <4A1E5207.8080503@ulb.ac.be> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560905270829t6c58478eo97354e7b4810b228@mail.gmail.com> <4A1D6653.5060605@ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560905271027l261794cdw76c8719b7e7d9048@mail.gmail.com> <4A1E5207.8080503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560905280202i75b93fc5i4cb1efc81a07f8eb@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/28 Alain Gottcheiner : > Wayne Burrows a ?crit : >> A small simulation suggest the average ten HCP hand takes around 8.3 - >> 8.4 double dummy tricks in the best (most tricks) denomination. >> >> The WBF regulation "average hand" takes 8.0 - 8.1 tricks in a ?similar >> simulation. >> >> A hand with six spades (or infact any six-card suit) and no hcp >> outside spades takes 8.0 - 8.1 tricks in a similar simulation. ?Since >> this hand averages 6/13 * 10 HCP this means that the WBF regulation >> "average hand" takes about as many tricks as a 4-5 HCP hand with a >> six-card suit (and concentrated values). >> >> AKJxxx and out takes around 8.7 tricks. ?This is significantly more >> than the WBF regulation "average hand". >> >> These numbers suggest that the average trick taking potential of a >> hand is little less than that what Alain suggested. ?In this >> simulation around 4.2 offensive tricks for each of the two hands in >> the partnership. >> >> >> > AG : not quite. Your 8.4 tricks average are made of 4.8 from the hand > and 3.6 from the opposite hand. Remember we take as trumps the long suit > of the hand we see. > I didn't i found the best (most tricks) trump fit. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 28 11:04:53 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:04:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <001201c9df66$c3e47f80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred><2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com><000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905271410x66c4eb10s412d70b0d4737478@mail.gmail.com> <001201c9df66$c3e47f80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A1E53B5.9030006@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "Some said 'John, print it', others said 'Not so'. > Some said 'It might do good', others said 'No'. > [ Pilgrim's Progress > Apology for his book.] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "richard willey" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:10 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. > > > >> Hi Grattan >> >> Thanks for the reply. I must admit that I am still a bit confused. >> >> I would think that a hand like the following >> >> AT63 >> K952 >> Q84 >> J7 >> >> would be considered an "average" hand. >> >> Furthermore, I would think that most any hand that includes an A, a >> King, a Queen, and a Jack would also be considered of average >> strength. I don't understand the desire / need to "special case" >> hands like >> >> > +=+ The WBF Systems Policy states that an average hand is one > "containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional > values". So the hand above meets the definition. What we are about > in the matter of solid suits is a definition of distributional values that > exempt hands with only nine HCP from BS categorization. What we > are saying about six card suits is that in our view they do not qualify > for inclusion with average hands without the J. . > ~ G ~ +=+ > AG : I think the present discussion doesn't take into account the main reason for such rulings : the nuisance the nondescript opening would cause. But opening a 10-count with an artificial bid causes as much nuisance, perhaps even more, when holding a 6-card suit than when holding 4333 shape. So the HCP criterion is sensible. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 28 12:08:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:08:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred><2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com><000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905271410x66c4eb10s412d70b0d4737478@mail.gmail.com><001201c9df66$c3e47f80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1E53B5.9030006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001d01c9df7c$651232c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. > AG : I think the present discussion doesn't take into account the main reason for such rulings : the nuisance the nondescript opening would cause.But opening a 10-count with an artificial bid causes as much nuisance, perhaps even more, when holding a 6-card suit than when holding 4333 shape. So the HCP criterion is sensible. << +=+ I have not come across anyone opening a 4-4-3-2 count of ten by agreement with a bid of 2C through 3S. However, it would not be Brown Sticker. . ~ G ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu May 28 12:14:01 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 22:14:01 +1200 Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <001d01c9df7c$651232c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> <000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905271410x66c4eb10s412d70b0d4737478@mail.gmail.com> <001201c9df66$c3e47f80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1E53B5.9030006@ulb.ac.be> <001d01c9df7c$651232c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560905280314k213e4b7ct1e65d0501fd3c1b0@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/28 Grattan : > > > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "Nothing is more dangerous than an idea > ?when it is the only idea we have." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?[Alain, 'Libres proposes'] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:04 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. > > >> > AG : I think the present discussion doesn't take into account > the main reason for such rulings : the nuisance the nondescript > opening would cause.But opening a 10-count with an artificial > bid causes as much nuisance, perhaps even more, when holding > a 6-card suit than when holding 4333 shape. So the HCP > criterion is sensible. > > << > +=+ I have not come across anyone opening a 4-4-3-2 count > of ten by agreement with a bid of 2C through 3S. ?However, it > would not be Brown Sticker. . It would be if this was not the lower limit. Richard Willey mentioned recently about playing or considering playing 2NT as 9-12 HCP BAL. Zia Mahmood and his partner were playing 2NT as 12-14 HCP BAL in the Cavendish. So 10 HCP BAL is not far from methods that are played. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 28 12:40:22 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:40:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Brown sticker exemptions - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560905280202i75b93fc5i4cb1efc81a07f8eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560905270829t6c58478eo97354e7b4810b228@mail.gmail.com> <4A1D6653.5060605@ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560905271027l261794cdw76c8719b7e7d9048@mail.gmail.com> <4A1E5207.8080503@ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560905280202i75b93fc5i4cb1efc81a07f8eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A1E6A16.80505@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > 2009/5/28 Alain Gottcheiner : > >> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : >> >>> A small simulation suggest the average ten HCP hand takes around 8.3 - >>> 8.4 double dummy tricks in the best (most tricks) denomination. >>> >>> The WBF regulation "average hand" takes 8.0 - 8.1 tricks in a similar >>> simulation. >>> >>> A hand with six spades (or infact any six-card suit) and no hcp >>> outside spades takes 8.0 - 8.1 tricks in a similar simulation. Since >>> this hand averages 6/13 * 10 HCP this means that the WBF regulation >>> "average hand" takes about as many tricks as a 4-5 HCP hand with a >>> six-card suit (and concentrated values). >>> >>> AKJxxx and out takes around 8.7 tricks. This is significantly more >>> than the WBF regulation "average hand". >>> >>> These numbers suggest that the average trick taking potential of a >>> hand is little less than that what Alain suggested. In this >>> simulation around 4.2 offensive tricks for each of the two hands in >>> the partnership. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> AG : not quite. Your 8.4 tricks average are made of 4.8 from the hand >> and 3.6 from the opposite hand. Remember we take as trumps the long suit >> of the hand we see. >> >> > > I didn't i found the best (most tricks) trump fit. > > AG : OK, I see, but this might be some other fit than the best suit of the hand under scrutiny. Whence the value differs. For example, my previous hand of AJxxx - x - Q9x - K10xx was considered worth about 4.8 tricks in its best suit, but if partner's pattern is, say, 2524, we'll have to reconsider the hand's trick-taking potential for clubs. I wouldn't be surprised if it were close to 4.2 tricks. Summing up : if Wayne -or those responsible for system regulations- want to compute "relatively", they will get an average value of 4.2, and that's what they'll call 'average hand'. I think 4.8 "absoilute" and 4.2 "relative" are both reasonable valuations. But surely 3.25 is far off the mark. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 28 12:45:51 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:45:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <001d01c9df7c$651232c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred><2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com><000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905271410x66c4eb10s412d70b0d4737478@mail.gmail.com><001201c9df66$c3e47f80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1E53B5.9030006@ulb.ac.be> <001d01c9df7c$651232c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A1E6B5F.8080407@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott also ********************************** > "Nothing is more dangerous than an idea > when it is the only idea we have." > [Alain, 'Libres proposes'] > ********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:04 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. > > > >> >> > AG : I think the present discussion doesn't take into account > the main reason for such rulings : the nuisance the nondescript > opening would cause.But opening a 10-count with an artificial > bid causes as much nuisance, perhaps even more, when holding > a 6-card suit than when holding 4333 shape. So the HCP > criterion is sensible. > > << > +=+ I have not come across anyone opening a 4-4-3-2 count > of ten by agreement with a bid of 2C through 3S. However, it > would not be Brown Sticker. . > AG : but 2C = any 4441 with 10-14 HCP ? This does exist ... Anyway, we don't disagree. What I said is that the same reason that disallows an opening of 2C with a nondescript 4432 8-count should disallow an opening of 2C with a nondescript 6331 8-count. The perturbating effect on oppnents is the same. (whether there should be any such interdiction is another matter) Best regards Alain From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu May 28 15:39:21 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 09:39:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <001201c9df66$c3e47f80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> <000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905271410x66c4eb10s412d70b0d4737478@mail.gmail.com> <001201c9df66$c3e47f80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0905280639o2d7b999fvfa1850913aa9fa6e@mail.gmail.com> Hi Grattan Thanks for the explanation. This might seem unduely pedantic, however, I would strongly prefer that correspondences that address this issue focus on the fact that AKQxxx xxx xx xx does not qualify as a solid suit or that AKQxxx xxx x xx does qualify as a solid suit. If you start issuing correspondence that explains that AKQJxx xxx xx xx is a legitimate because AKQJxx is a solid suit you're setting yourselves up for a lot more trouble down the line. Its every bit as valid to open AQJxxx Kxx xx xx as the original example and no one would claim that this is a solid suit. However, this hand is clearly allowed under the average hand language. To avoid confusion, you really want to make sure that the solid suit examples that you provide don't overlap with the more comprehensive average hand rules. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 28 21:55:22 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:55:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (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 (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 Decision #1. Usually I would say to call me if there is a problem or they think the player too advantage of UI. But S said this was only the first or second time she called the director. So I said to call me back when the hand was over. They didn't call me back. Decision #2, I went to the table. S, who called me, said that East had his bid. Decision #3.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. Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get -200 and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split scores. But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are ALL in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in 4H. If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner hesitates before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner must have an opening hand. Finally I realize that the right ruling is to role back the result to 3H making 5. That feels right. I check with EW to see how they react. East isn't happy, but he seems to be gracefully accepting the ruling and he isn't saying anything about asking for a committee. I promised him I would check a little more about the bid, and I find one more player who would have jumped straight to 4H. I am sorry I asked. BUT, NS said that East thought about his 4H bid. That hesitation suggests that 4H was not an obvious bid to him. Now I am realizing that the laws interfere with good bidding. I think a jump to 4H should be used for a pre-emptive hand. With this hand and its 11 HCP, I think it is much more descriptive to bid 3D and then jump to 4H. But we can see the problems with that. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu May 28 22:14:53 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 21:14:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (hesitation ruling) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A1EF0BD.5050003@talktalk.net> [Robert Frick] 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 Decision #1. Usually I would say to call me if there is a problem or they think the player too advantage of UI. But S said this was only the first or second time she called the director. So I said to call me back when the hand was over. They didn't call me back. Decision #2, I went to the table. S, who called me, said that East had his bid. Decision #3.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. Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get -200 and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split scores. But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are ALL in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in 4H. If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner hesitates before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner must have an opening hand. Finally I realize that the right ruling is to role back the result to 3H making 5. That feels right. I check with EW to see how they react. East isn't happy, but he seems to be gracefully accepting the ruling and he isn't saying anything about asking for a committee. I promised him I would check a little more about the bid, and I find one more player who would have jumped straight to 4H. I am sorry I asked. BUT, NS said that East thought about his 4H bid. That hesitation suggests that 4H was not an obvious bid to him. Now I am realizing that the laws interfere with good bidding. I think a jump to 4H should be used for a pre-emptive hand. With this hand and its 11 HCP, I think it is much more descriptive to bid 3D and then jump to 4H. But we can see the problems with that. [nige1] I think: Robert was right to return to the table although the players didn't recall him; he was right to investigate whether there was damage in spite of the fact that none of the players where aware of it; and his ruling was also fair: a paradigm of ideal director behaviour. From blml at arcor.de Thu May 28 22:21:19 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 22:21:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <4A1E53B5.9030006@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A1E53B5.9030006@ulb.ac.be> <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred><2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com><000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905271410x66c4eb10s412d70b0d4737478@mail.gmail.com> <001201c9df66$c3e47f80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2279371.1243542079157.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Grattan a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott > also > ********************************** > > "Some said 'John, print it', others said 'Not so'. > > Some said 'It might do good', others said 'No'. > > [ Pilgrim's Progress > > Apology for his book.] > > ********************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "richard willey" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:10 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. > > > > > > > >> Hi Grattan > >> > >> Thanks for the reply. I must admit that I am still a bit confused. > >> > >> I would think that a hand like the following > >> > >> AT63 > >> K952 > >> Q84 > >> J7 > >> > >> would be considered an "average" hand. > >> > >> Furthermore, I would think that most any hand that includes an A, a > >> King, a Queen, and a Jack would also be considered of average > >> strength. I don't understand the desire / need to "special case" > >> hands like > >> > >> > > +=+ The WBF Systems Policy states that an average hand is one > > "containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional > > values". So the hand above meets the definition. What we are about > > in the matter of solid suits is a definition of distributional values that > > > exempt hands with only nine HCP from BS categorization. What we > > are saying about six card suits is that in our view they do not qualify > > for inclusion with average hands without the J. . > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > AG : I think the present discussion doesn't take into account the main > reason for such rulings : the nuisance the nondescript opening would cause. I think those regulations were always misguided. Yes, those openings are a nuisance, but bidding action is part of the fun of playing bridge. That includes bidding action started by opponents' fancy opening bids. By taking away that, the regulations introduced boredom, and favored mechanics over creativity. 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 Fri May 29 00:32:31 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 23:32:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Thrill of the chase Message-ID: <000c01c9dfe4$33b55870$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com><4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP><001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no> <6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2CEA9E371B264D99B1BAE9F4CEC8003B@mamoslaptop> Hi Marvin I'm replying privately to this because I've been away for a few days and so am four or five days behind and don't want to publish to the group something that others have already said. Background I am an EBU National TD, EBL trained and also a member orf the EBU's Laws and Ethics Committee. I wouldn't describe myself as a "wild man" though some of the Law Makers efforts drive me mad. I thought Sven's summary of the position in Norway reflects what EBU TDs expect and would advise players to do - agree a hesitation, call the TD if it is disputed immediately if it is disputed. It's simply the case that the TD has a better chance of establishing the facts in a "neutral atmosphere"That doesn't mean that we cannot rule on a hesitation later as I've heard some TDs assert - it's simply that where there is a disputed hesitation the best chance of resolving the "facts" is before the hand is completed and the result known. MI is completely different - If MI "comes to light" during the auction period ie up until the moment dummy is faced I/we encourage/tell players to call the TD IMMEDIATELY. Failure to do this may really damage your health because the TDs the option of allowing players to change their calls and eexperienced players may entirely lose their rights under 21B3 if the TD call is not timely. I think that in the case you describe - dummy faced - I as a player would nt summon the TD until the end of play - "If dummy's 2 Spade bid had been alerted, I would/might have bid differently" If as a TD, I was called when dummy appeared I would almost certainly instruct play to continue with the "Call me back" proviso. Asking questions even away from the table will just create too much UI. If your partner goes away from the table and has a five minute conversation with the TD you know something is up. Frankly I just think that telling you it is too late to report MI and claim damage is just illegal (as well as stupid) and taking players away from the table during the play to ask questions about the auction is poor practice. In MI cases I am very careful when I arrive at the table to listen to who called me and to hear the first things that are said. "My partner would have bid differently" means a lot less than "If 2 Spades had been alerted I would never have bid 3 Hearts" . Personally I write notes - summarising what is said. Two hours later when we get to appeal, lots more reasons and arguments have generally been thought of which are quite irrelevant Mike Amos ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L16B2-3 > > From: "Sven Pran" > >>> Marvin L French >>> >>> From: "Jerry Fusselman" >>> >>> >I will be interesting in the replies on this thread. I have a >>> >few >>> >comments: >>> > >>> > 1. There are several cases documented in the ACBL casebooks >>> > where >>> > failure to call at just the right moment trashed your rights. >>> > This is >>> > unfortunate. >>> >>> This mythical prescribed treatment is also popular with ACBL TDs >>> in >>> regard to MI as well as UI. With L16B2/3 now clearly stating that >>> the matter is normally handled at the end of play, this should no >>> longer happen in a UI case. >>> >>> However, an ACBL TD last week ruled that there would be no >>> redress >>> for me in an MI case because I did not call her when sight of >>> dummy >>> revealed MI, but waited until end of play. I know the reason, >>> which >>> is that they want to take opposing players away from the table >>> and >>> question them before they have a chance to think about it. As a >>> top >>> ACBL TD told me, they hope to trap them into making a >>> self-damaging >>> statement. >>> >>> The Laws should have addressed MI in the same way as UI, >>> including >>> the "end of play" phrase. >> >> Misinformation is a completely different kettle of fish and not >> subject to >> any use of Law 16 at all. (UI to partner from MI given to >> opponents of >> course still is). >> > UI is different, yes, and treated separately, but is always a > companion to MI. All I want is that when it is too late to change a > call or the opening lead, as when dummy's hand shows evidence of > possible MI, the TD should be called at end of play . That assumes > the opponents don't make the TD call, as they should, when either of > them reaizes that MI has been created. > > The most frequent case is when there has been a failure to Alert a > call, as dummy's hand clearly shows. There is generally no need to > call the TD until end of play, but ACBL TDs are requiring a call > immediately if redress for damage is to be given. That's wrong, and > I wish the WBFLC would say so. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 29 11:36:26 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:36:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0905280639o2d7b999fvfa1850913aa9fa6e@mail.gmail.com> References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> <000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905271410x66c4eb10s412d70b0d4737478@mail.gmail.com> <001201c9df66$c3e47f80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905280639o2d7b999fvfa1850913aa9fa6e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A1FAC9A.9030005@ulb.ac.be> richard willey a ?crit : > Hi Grattan > > Thanks for the explanation. > > This might seem unduely pedantic, however, I would strongly prefer > that correspondences that address this issue focus on the fact that > > AKQxxx > xxx > xx > xx > > does not qualify as a solid suit or that > > AKQxxx > xxx > x > xx > > does qualify as a solid suit. > AG : perhaps I'll disappoint you, but IMNSHO the answer to that question isn't yes/no and one has to accpet "fuzzy-logic" answers. Nothing below AKQJ109x is solid, i.e. 100% sure not to have any losers. AKQJxx is a little under 90% solid. AKQxxx is about 60% solid. No other response is mathematically correct. Best regards Alain From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri May 29 11:44:25 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:44:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I talked to Maxine, John's partner yesterday evening John is making good but slow progress He is feeding hmself soft foods and is able to talk, albeit ina limited fashion He is no longer paralysed and his vision which was affected is now much restored, although he is still having some problems moving his eyes in one direction. Maxine sounded very pleased and positive about these changes so I think that gives some indication of how serious John's condition was last week , some indication of how much improvement there has been and some indication of how long and hard the road they have to follow. John is being moved in the next few days to a specialist unit for stroke recovery and I'm planning a trip to see him next week. I'll be happy to relay messages insults, jokes and so on Best wishes Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Mad Dog > I've not been checkin on BLML for a few days. Too bad to hear about John. > > Please give my regards to him and wish him all the best, and hopefully > a quick recovery. > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > > > > 2009/5/21 GORDON RAINSFORD : >> >> I imagine that many of you, his friends across the world, will not know >> that John (maddog) Probst had a stroke earlier this week and is in the >> Royal London Hospital. His condition has improved over the last few days >> and he can now talk a bit, but tires easily and is not well enough for >> many visitors. However I'm sure he'll welcome messages, either directly >> to his email address for when he's well enough to access them, or here on >> the list which I'll undertake to get passed on and read out to him. >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 29 11:58:14 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:58:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L16B2-3 References: <6BE2A1911E11460F90F75EFDCAF83834@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0905241054q3dbfe238v25a88d200b329359@mail.gmail.com><4021CFC636CE4F2F970E10E9B1180A92@MARVLAPTOP><001301c9dcb0$e5b94950$b12bdbf0$@no><6AB9713BD62D43E8981D95FD461163E2@MARVLAPTOP> <2CEA9E371B264D99B1BAE9F4CEC8003B@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <000a01c9e043$ffed9240$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L16B2-3 > Background > I am an EBU National TD, EBL trained and also a member of > the EBU's Laws and Ethics Committee. I wouldn't describe > myself as a "wild man" though some of the Law Makers efforts > drive me mad. > +=+ Mike is a calm professional TD with a high strike rate. He has my respect. I am sure he understands full well that, loyal to my office, I expound and defend WBF laws positions whether I would personally like them to be dfferent or regard them as the best available solution. +=+ < (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. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 29 12:03:12 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:03:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. References: <004701c9db97$7fb82910$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905270619k3a37ca99w70f5f767a28ab6cd@mail.gmail.com> <000a01c9df0d$79b9d300$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2da24b8e0905271410x66c4eb10s412d70b0d4737478@mail.gmail.com> <001201c9df66$c3e47f80$0302a8c0@Mildred><2da24b8e0905280639o2d7b999fvfa1850913aa9fa6e@mail.gmail.com> <4A1FAC9A.9030005@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001701c9e044$ae1d17f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] BS exemption - 'solid' suit. Nothing below AKQJ109x is solid, i.e. 100% sure not to have any losers. AKQJxx is a little under 90% solid. AKQxxx is about 60% solid. +=+ The regulators have simply drawn a line in the sand. ~ G ~ +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri May 29 13:58:15 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:58:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A1FCDD7.6000306@t-online.de> Mike Amos schrieb: > I talked to Maxine, John's partner yesterday evening > > John is making good but slow progress > He is feeding hmself soft foods and is able to talk, albeit ina limited > fashion > He is no longer paralysed and his vision which was affected is now much > restored, although he is still having some problems moving his eyes in one > direction. That doesn't sound like _slow_ progress to me. Compared to my father's case this sounds pretty good. Every case is different, of course, and the road will be long and hard, indeed, but I can understand why Maxine sounds pleased and positive. Let us all hope that John continues to recuperate, he is a great guy. > > Maxine sounded very pleased and positive about these changes so I think that > gives some indication of how serious John's condition was last week , some > indication of how much improvement there has been and some indication of how > long and hard the road they have to follow. > > John is being moved in the next few days to a specialist unit for stroke > recovery and I'm planning a trip to see him next week. > > I'll be happy to relay messages insults, jokes and so on 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 > > Best wishes Mike > From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri May 29 14:32:46 2009 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:32:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (hesitation ruling) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I just want to answer #3 > Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get -200 > and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split scores. > But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are ALL > in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am > getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in 4H. > If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner hesitates > before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner must > have an opening hand. split score is for NS -650 (or NS-650) and EO +200 (or (EO-200, is this a way to generalize scores? just give the score you enter on the computer) not the other way ... both sides aren't both NOS ... Kenavo Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:55 PM Subject: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (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 > > Decision #1. Usually I would say to call me if there is a problem or they > think the player too advantage of UI. But S said this was only the first > or second time she called the director. So I said to call me back when the > hand was over. > > They didn't call me back. Decision #2, I went to the table. S, who called > me, said that East had his bid. > > Decision #3.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. > > Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get -200 > and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split scores. > But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are ALL > in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am > getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in 4H. > If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner hesitates > before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner must > have an opening hand. > > Finally I realize that the right ruling is to role back the result to 3H > making 5. That feels right. I check with EW to see how they react. East > isn't happy, but he seems to be gracefully accepting the ruling and he > isn't saying anything about asking for a committee. I promised him I would > check a little more about the bid, and I find one more player who would > have jumped straight to 4H. I am sorry I asked. BUT, NS said that East > thought about his 4H bid. That hesitation suggests that 4H was not an > obvious bid to him. > > Now I am realizing that the laws interfere with good bidding. I think a > jump to 4H should be used for a pre-emptive hand. With this hand and its > 11 HCP, I think it is much more descriptive to bid 3D and then jump to 4H. > But we can see the problems with that. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la > base des signatures de virus 4113 (20090528) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 29 15:31:35 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:31:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (hesitation ruling) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 28, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 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 > > Decision #1. Usually I would say to call me if there is a problem > or they > think the player too advantage of UI. But S said this was only the > first > or second time she called the director. So I said to call me back > when the > hand was over. > > They didn't call me back. Decision #2, I went to the table. S, who > called > me, said that East had his bid. > > Decision #3.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. > > Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS > get -200 > and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split > scores. > But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they > are ALL > in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am > getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be > in 4H. > If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner > hesitates > before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner > must > have an opening hand. > > Finally I realize that the right ruling is to role back the result > to 3H > making 5. That feels right. I check with EW to see how they react. > East > isn't happy, but he seems to be gracefully accepting the ruling and he > isn't saying anything about asking for a committee. I promised him > I would > check a little more about the bid, and I find one more player who > would > have jumped straight to 4H. I am sorry I asked. BUT, NS said that East > thought about his 4H bid. That hesitation suggests that 4H was not an > obvious bid to him. > > Now I am realizing that the laws interfere with good bidding. I > think a > jump to 4H should be used for a pre-emptive hand. With this hand > and its > 11 HCP, I think it is much more descriptive to bid 3D and then jump > to 4H. > But we can see the problems with that. This case may be fairly clear, but there is a generic problem with auctions of this sort, involving presumptive invitational raises that are actually two-way bids, either invitational strength or a concealed slam try, the latter shown by bidding again after partner attempts to sign off (at game or below). To take a simpler case than Bob's, consider 1S-2H-P-? In my favored methods, I have three ways to raise hearts: 3H is a mild invitation, allowing for partner's having a heavy 2H overcall that wasn't suitable for an intermediate 3H (typically sufficient in high cards but lacking good enough hearts). 4H is "drop dead", either expecting to make but with no slam ambitions or preempting. 3D is an artificial raise (2S would show clubs), presumptively a serious invitation; partner bids 3H with a minimum, 4H with a normally good hand, or something else (a slammish-sounding move) with an "overweight" maximum, i.e. a hand that would have accepted over 3H. But, as is normal playing such methods, 3D may also conceal a slam try, with which the bidder intends to bid only 4H if partner bids 3H to show a poor hand. With 2H showing such a wide range of hands as it does, it is easy to imagine the sort of hands a conservative bidder might consider marginal between bidding 4H and inviting with 3D, but an agressive bidder might consider marginal between bidding 4H and making a slam try (by starting with 3D). If the latter bids 3D, then completes his intended "two-step" by bidding 4H after partner hesitates before bidding 3H, it will look to the former very much like a UI infraction. This can be a tricky situation for all involved, which must be why directors are so well paid. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 29 17:09:01 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 17:09:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : > Hi, > > I just want to answer #3 > >> Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get -200 >> and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split scores. >> But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are ALL >> in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am >> getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in 4H. >> If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner hesitates >> before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner must >> have an opening hand. >> > split score is for NS -650 (or NS-650) and EO +200 (or (EO-200, is this a > way to generalize scores? just give the score you enter on the computer) > not the other way ... > both sides aren't both NOS ... > > Kenavo > Olivier Beauvillain > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:55 PM > Subject: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (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 >> >> Decision #1. Usually I would say to call me if there is a problem or they >> think the player too advantage of UI. But S said this was only the first >> or second time she called the director. So I said to call me back when the >> hand was over. >> >> They didn't call me back. Decision #2, I went to the table. S, who called >> me, said that East had his bid. >> >> Decision #3.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. >> >> Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get -200 >> and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split scores. >> But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are ALL >> in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am >> getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in 4H. >> If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner hesitates >> before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner must >> have an opening hand. >> >> Finally I realize that the right ruling is to role back the result to 3H >> making 5. That feels right. I check with EW to see how they react. East >> isn't happy, but he seems to be gracefully accepting the ruling and he >> isn't saying anything about asking for a committee. I promised him I would >> check a little more about the bid, and I find one more player who would >> have jumped straight to 4H. I am sorry I asked. BUT, NS said that East >> thought about his 4H bid. That hesitation suggests that 4H was not an >> obvious bid to him. >> >> Now I am realizing that the laws interfere with good bidding. I think a >> jump to 4H should be used for a pre-emptive hand. With this hand and its >> 11 HCP, I think it is much more descriptive to bid 3D and then jump to 4H. >> But we can see the problems with that. >> AG : this is the typical case where I would want to bid 3D behind screens and pass the paper to my screenmate : "whatever happens, I'm in 4H". I don't think there is any LA to bidding 4H. Partner has bid 2H in a "dangerous" situation, he'd hold 6 cards and/or a singleton diamond ; we'll make the contract facing AKxxxx and out. I don't see why there should be any split score, however. Either 4H is obvious, and it's 650 for both sides, or it isn't, and it is 200 for both sides. A split score is only possible if the NOS contributed to its bad score in some way (I don't see what could support this idea), or if the TD made a wrong ruling which interfered with the table action (same remark). Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 29 17:09:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:09:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (hesitation ruling) References: Message-ID: <003e01c9e06f$78357210$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (hesitation ruling) Hi, I just want to answer #3 > Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get -200 > and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split scores. > But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are ALL > in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am > getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in 4H. > If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner hesitates > before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner must > have an opening hand. < +=+ Oliver, there really is not much doubt about what is required. The Director must first decide whether there was or was not a hesitation before the 3H bid (of a kind that will tell East something about the hand). If he decides that there was not a meaningful hesitation he must let the score stand; if he decides such a hesitation did take place then he must roll the contract back to 3H. Whichever it is the score applies for both sides. If he temporizes - says maybe there was and maybe there was not a hesitation - the Director puts his quality as a TD in doubt by his failure to make the judgement that the law requires of him. There can be no split score in this situation, it is one thing or the other for both sides. Inter alia, see Laws 84 and 85. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. < From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 29 17:16:14 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 17:16:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (hesitation ruling) In-Reply-To: <003e01c9e06f$78357210$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <003e01c9e06f$78357210$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A1FFC3E.3040500@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: "olivier.beauvillain" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (hesitation ruling) > > > Hi, > > I just want to answer #3 > >> Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get -200 >> and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split scores. >> But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are ALL >> in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am >> getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in 4H. >> If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner hesitates >> before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner must >> have an opening hand. >> > < > +=+ Oliver, there really is not much doubt about what is required. The > Director must first decide whether there was or was not a hesitation > before the 3H bid (of a kind that will tell East something about the hand). > If he decides that there was not a meaningful hesitation he must let the > score stand; if he decides such a hesitation did take place then he must > roll the contract back to 3H. AG : I disagrre strongly. If he decides that there was an hesitation AND that passing 3H was an option, he should roll the contract back to 3H. IMOCO the second condition isn't fulfilled. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 29 17:23:12 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:23:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:09 PM Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling I don't think there is any LA to bidding 4H. Partner has bid 2H in a "dangerous" situation, he'd hold 6 cards and/or a singleton diamond ; we'll make the contract facing AKxxxx and out. I don't see why there should be any split score, however. Either 4H is obvious, and it's 650 for both sides, or it isn't, and it is 200 for both sides. A split score is only possible if the NOS contributed to its bad score in some way (I don't see what could support this idea), or if the TD made a wrong ruling which interfered with the table action (same remark). +=+ 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). Whatever he decides the score goes on the score sheet the same for both sides. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 29 17:33:46 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:33:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (hesitation ruling) References: <003e01c9e06f$78357210$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A1FFC3E.3040500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000a01c9e072$dcdcc800$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (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: "olivier.beauvillain" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (hesitation ruling) > > > Hi, > > I just want to answer #3 > >> Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get -200 >> and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split scores. >> But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are ALL >> in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am >> getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in 4H. >> If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner >> hesitates >> before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner must >> have an opening hand. >> > < > +=+ Oliver, there really is not much doubt about what is required. The > Director must first decide whether there was or was not a hesitation > before the 3H bid (of a kind that will tell East something about the > hand). > If he decides that there was not a meaningful hesitation he must let the > score stand; if he decides such a hesitation did take place then he must > roll the contract back to 3H. AG : I disagrre strongly. If he decides that there was an hesitation AND that passing 3H was an option, he should roll the contract back to 3H. IMOCO the second condition isn't fulfilled. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' +=+In deciding about this the Director should adopt an attitude of scepticism and require to be fully convinced on both (a) that it is the partnership method and (b) that he has the hand for it. Any margin of doubt on either question goes against East-West. Whatever the Director decides the score goes on the score sheet the same for both sides. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 29 17:44:26 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 17:44:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> <004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A2002DA.3060304@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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:09 PM > Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > > I don't think there is any LA to bidding 4H. Partner has bid 2H in a > "dangerous" situation, he'd hold 6 cards and/or a singleton diamond ; > we'll make the contract facing AKxxxx and out. > I don't see why there should be any split score, however. Either 4H is > obvious, and it's 650 for both sides, or it isn't, and it is 200 for > both sides. A split score is only possible if the NOS contributed to its > bad score in some way (I don't see what could support this idea), or if > the TD made a wrong ruling which interfered with the table action (same > remark). > > +=+ 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). AG : what about checking with other players that everybody would bid 4H in this situation ? From adam at irvine.com Fri May 29 17:47:48 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:47:48 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 29 May 2009 17:09:01 +0200." <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200905291531.IAA03646@mailhub.irvine.com> Alain wrote: > >> 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 > I don't think there is any LA to bidding 4H. Partner has bid 2H in a > "dangerous" situation, he'd hold 6 cards and/or a singleton diamond ; > we'll make the contract facing AKxxxx and out. I'm with you on that. It's just plain inconceivable to me that any East who knows how to play this game would stop in 3H (especially since he has diamonds over the opener). Yeah, the king of clubs may be waste paper, so if you count East as having an 8-count, and West maybe with a distributional 7-count, they'll be in a 15-HCP game, in effect. So what. I've made plenty of those. I'd expect an overtrick on this hand. The OP said that there was one player in the club who said she'd pass 3H. My feeling is, the director should have checked her pulse. I just cannot accept passing 3H as an LA. But then again, LA is normally defined in terms of a player's peers, so I guess I'd have to know what the player's peers are like before making a ruling. If they're all Walruses then perhaps passing would be an LA. -- Adam From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 29 18:00:03 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:00:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> <004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:23:12 -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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:09 PM > Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > > I don't think there is any LA to bidding 4H. Partner has bid 2H in a > "dangerous" situation, he'd hold 6 cards and/or a singleton diamond ; > we'll make the contract facing AKxxxx and out. > I don't see why there should be any split score, however. Either 4H is > obvious, and it's 650 for both sides, or it isn't, and it is 200 for > both sides. A split score is only possible if the NOS contributed to its > bad score in some way (I don't see what could support this idea), or if > the TD made a wrong ruling which interfered with the table action (same > remark). > > +=+ 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). Whatever he decides the score goes > on the score sheet the same for both sides. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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. At the club level around here, when the NOS score is adjusted because of a hesitation or whatever, I would guess that more than half the time the OS gets to keep their original score. I agree with Grattan that it is not legal. But the world I live in -- which I am trying to share with you -- is that the club owner likes them (and they eliminate any possibility of appeal). So I have to be reasonably sure I am doing that right thing when I DON'T give a feel-good split score. This was close decision. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 29 18:07:26 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 18:07:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> <004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4A20083E.8080503@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:23:12 -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: "Alain Gottcheiner" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:09 PM >> Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling >> >> >> I don't think there is any LA to bidding 4H. Partner has bid 2H in a >> "dangerous" situation, he'd hold 6 cards and/or a singleton diamond ; >> we'll make the contract facing AKxxxx and out. >> I don't see why there should be any split score, however. Either 4H is >> obvious, and it's 650 for both sides, or it isn't, and it is 200 for >> both sides. A split score is only possible if the NOS contributed to its >> bad score in some way (I don't see what could support this idea), or if >> the TD made a wrong ruling which interfered with the table action (same >> remark). >> >> +=+ 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). Whatever he decides the score goes >> on the score sheet the same for both sides. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > 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. At the club level around here, when the > NOS score is adjusted because of a hesitation or whatever, I would guess > that more than half the time the OS gets to keep their original score. > > I agree with Grattan that it is not legal. But the world I live in -- > which I am trying to share with you -- is that the club owner likes them > (and they eliminate any possibility of appeal) AG : huh ? did nobody ever feel aggrieved because they lost their first place to a pair which got a top from your generous ruling ? From blml at arcor.de Fri May 29 18:10:30 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 18:10:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <200905291531.IAA03646@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200905291531.IAA03646@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <25928703.1243613430756.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: > Alain wrote: > > > >> 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 > > > I don't think there is any LA to bidding 4H. Partner has bid 2H in a > > "dangerous" situation, he'd hold 6 cards and/or a singleton diamond ; > > we'll make the contract facing AKxxxx and out. > > I'm with you on that. It's just plain inconceivable to me that any > East who knows how to play this game would stop in 3H (especially > since he has diamonds over the opener). Yeah, the king of clubs may > be waste paper, so if you count East as having an 8-count, and West > maybe with a distributional 7-count, they'll be in a 15-HCP game, in > effect. So what. I've made plenty of those. I'd expect an overtrick > on this hand. I clearly would bid 4H here, simply because I always bid 4H with a 10 card fit and a singleton. I would not consider stopping in 3H, but I have seen other pairs play only 3H with such hands. I disagree with Alain's statement that overcaller has bid 2H in a "dangerous" situation. It is not. Hearts and spades are "safe" suits here; responder already has denied a four card major, and (1NT was not alerted) even has a limited hand. 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 gampas at aol.com Fri May 29 18:13:42 2009 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:13:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <25928703.1243613430756.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <200905291531.IAA03646@mailhub.irvine.com> <25928703.1243613430756.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8CBAE8F918D9815-1364-48B1@webmail-mh22.sysops.aol.com> 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 +=+ 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).? Whatever he decides the score goes on the score sheet the same for both sides. ????????????????????????????????????????? ~ Grattan ~?? +=+ [paul lamford] I disagree with many of the principles expounded by Grattan above. Firstly, the idea that Pass is a LA on the West hand is a grossly inappropriate hand evaluation and would, I believe, represent grounds for an appeal to the National authority in England. East has no obligation to prove anything. If the director is satisfied that a specified percentage of Easts playing a similar style and of a similar ability would pass 3H without the BIT, then he wo uld adjust; if not he does not. I surveyed 10 players at my club of varying standards and they one bid 3NT and the others all bid 4H. They did not think the hand was worth a slam try! The director does not proceed with sceptism at all: A. Director?s Assessment 1. 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. ________________________________________________________________________ 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/20090529/7a27f859/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 29 18:32:26 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:32:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:09:01 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : >> Hi, >> >> I just want to answer #3 >> >>> Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get >>> -200 >>> and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split >>> scores. >>> But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are >>> ALL >>> in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am >>> getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in >>> 4H. >>> If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner >>> hesitates >>> before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner >>> must >>> have an opening hand. >>> >> split score is for NS -650 (or NS-650) and EO +200 (or (EO-200, is this >> a >> way to generalize scores? just give the score you enter on the computer) >> not the other way ... >> both sides aren't both NOS ... >> >> Kenavo >> Olivier Beauvillain >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:55 PM >> Subject: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (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 >>> >>> Decision #1. Usually I would say to call me if there is a problem or >>> they >>> think the player too advantage of UI. But S said this was only the >>> first >>> or second time she called the director. So I said to call me back when >>> the >>> hand was over. >>> >>> They didn't call me back. Decision #2, I went to the table. S, who >>> called >>> me, said that East had his bid. >>> >>> Decision #3.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. >>> >>> Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get >>> -200 >>> and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split >>> scores. >>> But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are >>> ALL >>> in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am >>> getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in >>> 4H. >>> If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner >>> hesitates >>> before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner >>> must >>> have an opening hand. >>> >>> Finally I realize that the right ruling is to role back the result to >>> 3H >>> making 5. That feels right. I check with EW to see how they react. East >>> isn't happy, but he seems to be gracefully accepting the ruling and he >>> isn't saying anything about asking for a committee. I promised him I >>> would >>> check a little more about the bid, and I find one more player who would >>> have jumped straight to 4H. I am sorry I asked. BUT, NS said that East >>> thought about his 4H bid. That hesitation suggests that 4H was not an >>> obvious bid to him. >>> >>> Now I am realizing that the laws interfere with good bidding. I think a >>> jump to 4H should be used for a pre-emptive hand. With this hand and >>> its >>> 11 HCP, I think it is much more descriptive to bid 3D and then jump to >>> 4H. >>> But we can see the problems with that. >>> > AG : this is the typical case where I would want to bid 3D behind > screens and pass the paper to my screenmate : "whatever happens, I'm in > 4H". > > I don't think there is any LA to bidding 4H. Partner has bid 2H in a > "dangerous" situation, he'd hold 6 cards and/or a singleton diamond ; > we'll make the contract facing AKxxxx and out. Do you mean "logical alternative" or "reasonable alternative"? To me, LA is a technical term, defined clearly in the laws. Your reasoning seems irrelevant for determining if pass is an LA. Or at least somewhat irrelevant -- it does not say anywhere in the laws that a suboptimal bid cannot be a LA. Meanwhile, you are ignoring all relevant evidence for determining if pass is an LA. Or, the evidence suggests that 50% of players, roughly, consider it obvious to bid 4H with this hand. You are saying that you consider it obvious to bid 4H with this hand. Why would you then reject the hypothesis that about only 50% of players consider it obviously to bid 4H with this hand? I am not questioning your analysis. Except, you already knew than the hand makes 5H. To determine what a player would bid with a hand, I would never first tell them the results on the hand, and I would never trust a decision made on that basis. (Psychological research suggests that people cannot ignore factors they know and cannot know how much any given factor is influencing their decisions.) From adam at irvine.com Fri May 29 18:46:09 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:46:09 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 29 May 2009 12:32:26 EDT." Message-ID: <200905291630.JAA04569@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Frick wrote: > Do you mean "logical alternative" or "reasonable alternative"? To me, LA > is a technical term, defined clearly in the laws. Your reasoning seems > irrelevant for determining if pass is an LA. Or at least somewhat > irrelevant -- it does not say anywhere in the laws that a suboptimal bid > cannot be a LA. Meanwhile, you are ignoring all relevant evidence for > determining if pass is an LA. > > Or, the evidence suggests that 50% of players, roughly, consider it > obvious to bid 4H with this hand. You are saying that you consider it > obvious to bid 4H with this hand. Why would you then reject the hypothesis > that about only 50% of players consider it obviously to bid 4H with this > hand? The definition of LA is an action 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". I'm pretty sure that among *my* class of player, the proportion of players who would consider passing 3H is pretty darn near zero. It's probably the same for Alain's class too. So you have to take into account who's sitting in the East seat. If I were sitting there, pass would not be an LA, even if 50% of all players *would* consider passing (none of those players would be in my class of player). That's not to say that this is the correct ruling in your actual case; you know the East player in question and I don't. > I am not questioning your analysis. Except, you already knew than the hand > makes 5H. You don't know that. I can't speak for Alain, but personally I formed the opinion that 4H was clearcut as soon as I saw the hand and the auction, before seeing the rest of your original post. -- Adam From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 29 18:49:28 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:49:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <4A20083E.8080503@ulb.ac.be> References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> <004d01c9e071$6274fc50$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4A20083E.8080503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:07:26 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:23:12 -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: "Alain Gottcheiner" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:09 PM >>> Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling >>> >>> >>> I don't think there is any LA to bidding 4H. Partner has bid 2H in a >>> "dangerous" situation, he'd hold 6 cards and/or a singleton diamond ; >>> we'll make the contract facing AKxxxx and out. >>> I don't see why there should be any split score, however. Either 4H is >>> obvious, and it's 650 for both sides, or it isn't, and it is 200 for >>> both sides. A split score is only possible if the NOS contributed to >>> its >>> bad score in some way (I don't see what could support this idea), or >>> if >>> the TD made a wrong ruling which interfered with the table action (same >>> remark). >>> >>> +=+ 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). Whatever he decides the score goes >>> on the score sheet the same for both sides. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> >> 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. At the club level around here, when the >> NOS score is adjusted because of a hesitation or whatever, I would guess >> that more than half the time the OS gets to keep their original score. >> >> I agree with Grattan that it is not legal. But the world I live in -- >> which I am trying to share with you -- is that the club owner likes them >> (and they eliminate any possibility of appeal) > AG : huh ? did nobody ever feel aggrieved because they lost their first > place to a pair which got a top from your generous ruling ? Hi Alain. I didn't do a feel-good ruling here, so I wasn't being generous for this particular ruling. Also, I probably wouldn't use a feel-good split score to let the OS keep a top. But to answer your question -- almost no one ever feels aggrieved by a feel-good split score. If I had given a feel-good split score, no one would have known about it. Had they known, they wouldn't have known if it was appropriate or not; and if they felt it was inappropriate to do the feel-good split score, they still wouldn't know which score was deserved and which was undeserved. BTW, that's why directors use them for their own errors -- you foul up a board, you give both pairs an A+, they are relatively happy and the damaged pairs at the other tables will not feel aggrieved. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 29 19:11:50 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:11:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <200905291630.JAA04569@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200905291630.JAA04569@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:46:09 -0400, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> Do you mean "logical alternative" or "reasonable alternative"? To me, LA >> is a technical term, defined clearly in the laws. Your reasoning seems >> irrelevant for determining if pass is an LA. Or at least somewhat >> irrelevant -- it does not say anywhere in the laws that a suboptimal bid >> cannot be a LA. Meanwhile, you are ignoring all relevant evidence for >> determining if pass is an LA. >> >> Or, the evidence suggests that 50% of players, roughly, consider it >> obvious to bid 4H with this hand. You are saying that you consider it >> obvious to bid 4H with this hand. Why would you then reject the >> hypothesis >> that about only 50% of players consider it obviously to bid 4H with this >> hand? > > The definition of LA is an action 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". I'm pretty sure that among > *my* class of player, the proportion of players who would consider > passing 3H is pretty darn near zero. But why do you think that? What is see is, "It is obvious to me that this hand should bid 4H." Therefore, almost all players of my ability level would bid 4H with this hand. Do you have more evidence that you are not telling me about? This inference is going to work sometimes. But is it that reliable? I mean, next time I want to determine if a bid is an LA or not, can I just ask one person? It seems obvious to me that we are talking about two fundamentally different ways of determining if a bid is an LA. > It's probably the same for > Alain's class too. So you have to take into account who's sitting in > the East seat. If I were sitting there, pass would not be an LA, even > if 50% of all players *would* consider passing (none of those players > would be in my class of player). That's not to say that this is the > correct ruling in your actual case; you know the East player in > question and I don't. > > >> I am not questioning your analysis. Except, you already knew than the >> hand >> makes 5H. > > You don't know that. I can't speak for Alain, but personally I formed > the opinion that 4H was clearcut as soon as I saw the hand and the > auction, before seeing the rest of your original post. > > -- Adam > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Fri May 29 19:33:13 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 19:33:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200905291630.JAA04569@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <14520091.1243618393229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:46:09 -0400, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > Robert Frick wrote: > > > >> Do you mean "logical alternative" or "reasonable alternative"? To me, LA > >> is a technical term, defined clearly in the laws. Your reasoning seems > >> irrelevant for determining if pass is an LA. Or at least somewhat > >> irrelevant -- it does not say anywhere in the laws that a suboptimal bid > >> cannot be a LA. Meanwhile, you are ignoring all relevant evidence for > >> determining if pass is an LA. > >> > >> Or, the evidence suggests that 50% of players, roughly, consider it > >> obvious to bid 4H with this hand. You are saying that you consider it > >> obvious to bid 4H with this hand. Why would you then reject the > >> hypothesis > >> that about only 50% of players consider it obviously to bid 4H with this > >> hand? > > > > The definition of LA is an action 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". I'm pretty sure that among > > *my* class of player, the proportion of players who would consider > > passing 3H is pretty darn near zero. > > But why do you think that? What is see is, > > "It is obvious to me that this hand should bid 4H." > Therefore, almost all players of my ability level would bid 4H with this > hand. > > Do you have more evidence that you are not telling me about? I am sure Adam is right. At *his* level, almost nobody will stop in 3H with that hand. Certainly not on my side of the atlantic, where almost all experts are very aggressive bidders, especially at the game level. Yes, this particular hand is that obvious. No, that does not constitute a generally applicaple method. 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 adam at irvine.com Fri May 29 19:36:29 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:36:29 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 29 May 2009 13:11:50 EDT." Message-ID: <200905291720.KAA05143@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert wrote: > > Robert Frick wrote: > > > >> Do you mean "logical alternative" or "reasonable alternative"? To me, LA > >> is a technical term, defined clearly in the laws. Your reasoning seems > >> irrelevant for determining if pass is an LA. Or at least somewhat > >> irrelevant -- it does not say anywhere in the laws that a suboptimal bid > >> cannot be a LA. Meanwhile, you are ignoring all relevant evidence for > >> determining if pass is an LA. > >> > >> Or, the evidence suggests that 50% of players, roughly, consider it > >> obvious to bid 4H with this hand. You are saying that you consider it > >> obvious to bid 4H with this hand. Why would you then reject the > >> hypothesis > >> that about only 50% of players consider it obviously to bid 4H with this > >> hand? > > > > The definition of LA is an action 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". I'm pretty sure that among > > *my* class of player, the proportion of players who would consider > > passing 3H is pretty darn near zero. > > But why do you think that? Experience. And the books I've read. > What [I] see is, > > "It is obvious to me that this hand should bid 4H." > Therefore, almost all players of my ability level would bid 4H with this > hand. What you see is wrong. I've been playing long enough to have some idea of how other players bid. This is based on observing them, *not* simply on a dumb argument like "This is how *I* would bid so therefore that's how I think others would bid." That isn't how I think. > Do you have more evidence that you are not telling me about? Experience. And the books I've read. If that isn't good enough for you---i.e. if I have to go back through my 25+ years of playing and think of all the hands where I've seen other players bid like that, and then go through my whole bridge library and look for all the principles espoused by experts that would point to a 4H bid with this hand, in order to provide you with evidence you'll accept---then forget it. There's no reasonable way to convince you. > This inference is going to work sometimes. But is it that reliable? I > mean, next time I want to determine if a bid is an LA or not, can I just > ask one person? > > > It seems obvious to me that we are talking about two fundamentally > different ways of determining if a bid is an LA. No, not really. Yes, as a director you should ask other players in the same class as the one in question. I don't think I ever said otherwise. I'm just saying that if you asked players in the same class as **me**, I'm pretty sure, based on my experience, that pass wouldn't be an LA. My way of determining this would probably be the same, if I were actually directing and actually having to rule on the case---i.e. I'd ask several players in the same class as East for their judgment. But I'm not a director and I'm just expressing an opinion on BLML, not making an official ruling. I'm just telling you what I think would happen, in my opinion. -- Adam From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 30 07:27:42 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 01:27:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <200905291720.KAA05143@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200905291720.KAA05143@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:36:29 -0400, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Robert wrote: > >> > Robert Frick wrote: >> > >> >> Do you mean "logical alternative" or "reasonable alternative"? To >> me, LA >> >> is a technical term, defined clearly in the laws. Your reasoning >> seems >> >> irrelevant for determining if pass is an LA. Or at least somewhat >> >> irrelevant -- it does not say anywhere in the laws that a suboptimal >> bid >> >> cannot be a LA. Meanwhile, you are ignoring all relevant evidence for >> >> determining if pass is an LA. >> >> >> >> Or, the evidence suggests that 50% of players, roughly, consider it >> >> obvious to bid 4H with this hand. You are saying that you consider it >> >> obvious to bid 4H with this hand. Why would you then reject the >> >> hypothesis >> >> that about only 50% of players consider it obviously to bid 4H with >> this >> >> hand? >> > >> > The definition of LA is an action 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". I'm pretty sure that among >> > *my* class of player, the proportion of players who would consider >> > passing 3H is pretty darn near zero. >> >> But why do you think that? > > Experience. And the books I've read. > >> What [I] see is, >> >> "It is obvious to me that this hand should bid 4H." >> Therefore, almost all players of my ability level would bid 4H with this >> hand. > > What you see is wrong. I've been playing long enough to have some > idea of how other players bid. This is based on observing them, *not* > simply on a dumb argument like "This is how *I* would bid so therefore > that's how I think others would bid." That isn't how I think. > > >> Do you have more evidence that you are not telling me about? > > Experience. And the books I've read. If that isn't good enough for > you---i.e. if I have to go back through my 25+ years of playing and > think of all the hands where I've seen other players bid like that, > and then go through my whole bridge library and look for all the > principles espoused by experts that would point to a 4H bid with this > hand, in order to provide you with evidence you'll accept---then > forget it. There's no reasonable way to convince you. > > >> This inference is going to work sometimes. But is it that reliable? I >> mean, next time I want to determine if a bid is an LA or not, can I just >> ask one person? >> >> >> It seems obvious to me that we are talking about two fundamentally >> different ways of determining if a bid is an LA. > > No, not really. Yes, as a director you should ask other players in > the same class as the one in question. I don't think I ever said > otherwise. I'm just saying that if you asked players in the same > class as **me**, I'm pretty sure, based on my experience, that pass > wouldn't be an LA. My way of determining this would probably be the > same, if I were actually directing and actually having to rule on the > case---i.e. I'd ask several players in the same class as East for > their judgment. But I'm not a director and I'm just expressing an > opinion on BLML, not making an official ruling. I'm just telling you > what I think would happen, in my opinion. Actually, your first claim was simply to agree with Alain that pass was not an LA. You qualified that to say that pass might be an LA for a Walrus, but these were not Walruses. I agree that as director, I will often say that a bid is not an LA and not take a poll. But I took a poll and then you and Alain just ignored it. Is this something a DIC could do? I take a poll, I make a ruling, and then the director in charge overrules me because he thinks a particular bid is not an LA even though the poll suggests it was? Would it have been okay if the club owner overruled me? Like you and Alain, she didn't think passing was an LA. Or an appeals committee? An appeals committee can overrule my judgment. Was it a matter of judgment that I decided that pass was an LA? I don't think so. From nbpfemu at bigpond.com Sat May 30 08:09:12 2009 From: nbpfemu at bigpond.com (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 16:09:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <200905291720.KAA05143@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: I may be completely missing the point here, but did W know that 3D was a Heart raise? I have seen these auctions time and time again. The overcaller hesitates because either they: (i) don't know that it is a heart raise (no agreement) (ii) have forgotten that it is a heart raise (can't remember) (iii) think it is a stopper ask, and they aren't sure if they have one (Qxx say) (iv) know it is a heart raise but might be thinking of bidding 3NT to show a stopper too (see iii), or (v) missed the 1D bid, and they have no diamonds (asleep). People who play bridge are not all experts, or are prone to memory lapses, or really haven't thought much about the game, or are just hopeless. I have had partners who would fumble about with a 17 count after I had opened 2NT strong. Should I be barred if they do? IMHO, East should always bid 4H no matter what W does (short of a slam try.) The hesitation is irrelevant. regards, Noel From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat May 30 09:01:35 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 09:01:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <25928703.1243613430756.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <200905291531.IAA03646@mailhub.irvine.com> <25928703.1243613430756.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A20D9CF.70002@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > I clearly would bid 4H here, simply because I always bid 4H with > a 10 card fit and a singleton. I would not consider stopping in 3H, > but I have seen other pairs play only 3H with such hands. > > I disagree with Alain's statement that overcaller has bid 2H in a "dangerous" > situation. It is not. Hearts and spades are "safe" suits here; > responder already has denied a four card major, and > (1NT was not alerted) even has a limited hand. > > AG : yes Sir. Opener is still unlimited, hasn't denied a 4-card major, and has just enough information to double when it's right.(ie his partner will nearly never hold a singleton). For some reason, it's more dangerous to bid a suit that will be held *behind* you if anywhere. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat May 30 09:09:13 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 09:09:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4A20DB99.4040909@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:09:01 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > >> olivier.beauvillain a ?crit : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I just want to answer #3 >>> >>> >>>> Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get >>>> -200 >>>> and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split >>>> scores. >>>> But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are >>>> ALL >>>> in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am >>>> getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in >>>> 4H. >>>> If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner >>>> hesitates >>>> before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner >>>> must >>>> have an opening hand. >>>> >>>> >>> split score is for NS -650 (or NS-650) and EO +200 (or (EO-200, is this >>> a >>> way to generalize scores? just give the score you enter on the computer) >>> not the other way ... >>> both sides aren't both NOS ... >>> >>> Kenavo >>> Olivier Beauvillain >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:55 PM >>> Subject: [BLML] A Night at the Opera (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 >>>> >>>> Decision #1. Usually I would say to call me if there is a problem or >>>> they >>>> think the player too advantage of UI. But S said this was only the >>>> first >>>> or second time she called the director. So I said to call me back when >>>> the >>>> hand was over. >>>> >>>> They didn't call me back. Decision #2, I went to the table. S, who >>>> called >>>> me, said that East had his bid. >>>> >>>> Decision #3.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. >>>> >>>> Because this is a club and the club owners like split scores (NS get >>>> -200 >>>> and EW get +650) because they make people happy, I can give split >>>> scores. >>>> But this doesn't seem right. What do other tables do? Well, they are >>>> ALL >>>> in 4H. But the usual auction is P P P and a 1H opening. Finally, I am >>>> getting it. If partner opens 1H, it is obvious that you want to be in >>>> 4H. >>>> If partner just overcalls, it isn't as obvious. But when partner >>>> hesitates >>>> before bidding 3H, that shows just enough extra values that partner >>>> must >>>> have an opening hand. >>>> >>>> Finally I realize that the right ruling is to role back the result to >>>> 3H >>>> making 5. That feels right. I check with EW to see how they react. East >>>> isn't happy, but he seems to be gracefully accepting the ruling and he >>>> isn't saying anything about asking for a committee. I promised him I >>>> would >>>> check a little more about the bid, and I find one more player who would >>>> have jumped straight to 4H. I am sorry I asked. BUT, NS said that East >>>> thought about his 4H bid. That hesitation suggests that 4H was not an >>>> obvious bid to him. >>>> >>>> Now I am realizing that the laws interfere with good bidding. I think a >>>> jump to 4H should be used for a pre-emptive hand. With this hand and >>>> its >>>> 11 HCP, I think it is much more descriptive to bid 3D and then jump to >>>> 4H. >>>> But we can see the problems with that. >>>> >>>> >> AG : this is the typical case where I would want to bid 3D behind >> screens and pass the paper to my screenmate : "whatever happens, I'm in >> 4H". >> >> I don't think there is any LA to bidding 4H. Partner has bid 2H in a >> "dangerous" situation, he'd hold 6 cards and/or a singleton diamond ; >> we'll make the contract facing AKxxxx and out. >> > > Do you mean "logical alternative" or "reasonable alternative"? To me, LA > is a technical term, defined clearly in the laws. AG : indeed. A LA is a call that would be selected by some and taken into account by more. I claim that this isn't the case of the pass here, and that the fact that a lone player said she would have passed doesn't mean anything if an overwhelming majority does something else. > Your reasoning seems > irrelevant for determining if pass is an LA. Or at least somewhat > irrelevant -- it does not say anywhere in the laws that a suboptimal bid > cannot be a LA. Meanwhile, you are ignoring all relevant evidence for > determining if pass is an LA. > AG : where did you read that ? > Or, the evidence suggests that 50% of players, roughly, consider it > obvious to bid 4H with this hand. AG : did you try polling ? My evidence is : 11 votes for 4H, 1 for 3S and 1 for pass. > You are saying that you consider it > obvious to bid 4H with this hand. Why would you then reject the hypothesis > that about only 50% of players consider it obviously to bid 4H with this > hand? > AG : because I tested the hypothesis. What else ? > I am not questioning your analysis. Except, you already knew than the hand > makes 5H. AG : indeed. That's very easy to guess when you see the hand and the bidding. > To determine what a player would bid with a hand, I would never > first tell them the results on the hand AG : of course. Do you suggest I made something else ? Except that some guessed what the problem was. I mean, the 4H bid is so obvious that I could not be asking for guidance on what the right bid was. Best regards Alain From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat May 30 10:08:40 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 18:08:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Mad Dog In-Reply-To: <4A1FCDD7.6000306@t-online.de> References: <677709.978.qm@web86711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4A1FCDD7.6000306@t-online.de> Message-ID: <200905300808.n4U88uqp003846@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 09:58 PM 29/05/2009, you wrote: >Mike Amos schrieb: > > I talked to Maxine, John's partner yesterday evening > > > > John is making good but slow progress > > He is feeding hmself soft foods and is able to talk, albeit ina limited > > fashion > > He is no longer paralysed and his vision which was affected is now much > > restored, although he is still having some problems moving his eyes in one > > direction. > >That doesn't sound like _slow_ progress to me. Compared to my father's >case this sounds pretty good. Every case is different, of course, and >the road will be long and hard, indeed, but I can understand why Maxine >sounds pleased and positive. Let us all hope that John continues to >recuperate, he is a great guy. > > > > > Maxine sounded very pleased and positive about these changes so I > think that > > gives some indication of how serious John's condition was last week , some > > indication of how much improvement there has been and some > indication of how > > long and hard the road they have to follow. > > > > John is being moved in the next few days to a specialist unit for stroke > > recovery and I'm planning a trip to see him next week. > > > > I'll be happy to relay messages insults, jokes and so on > >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 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) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 30 13:07:55 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 12:07:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <4A1FFA8D.2060406@ulb.ac.be> <4A20DB99.4040909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002d01c9e116$e4402930$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling AG : of course. Do you suggest I made something else ? Except that some guessed what the problem was. I mean, the 4H bid is so obvious that I could not be asking for guidance on what the right bid was. +=+ The problem is that several responses in this thread display what I term the 'blinkered' approach. This assumes that partnership methods do not differ in the auction under examination. But as Law 16B1(b) requires the Director must always look for possibilities that a partnership under scrutiny differs in method from the general run of players in the room. When Directors consult players about judgemental matters they do not want to know what a player they consult would bid on the hand; they want to know what the player would bid *using the methods of the partnership in question*. If this EW pair play that 3D is invitational and partner then makes the decision whether to bid 3H or 4H there is no way in which East will be allowed to lift 3H to 4H after West has made his bid with manifest uncertainty. The hesitation kills that option. East cannot now rethink his decision to make a bid that transfers the choice of contract to his partner. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 30 13:21:47 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 12:21:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: Message-ID: <003b01c9e118$d2d1f690$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > IMHO, East should always bid 4H no matter what W does > (short of a slam try.) The hesitation is irrelevant. > > regards, > Noel > +=+ If East has made a bid that by his methods transfers the decision what level to play at to West, then West's hesitation gives him information that disallows him the option of making a fresh judgement on the hand. The Director must be highly sceptical now of an argument that East was 'always going to bid game'. He will want *evidence* that this possibility is included in the partnership method and, if he obtains that, must also judge then that the hand warrants adoption of it. On this thread some contributors are making this second judgement without having first established the precondition. ~ G ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 30 18:19:13 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 11:19:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling Message-ID: <4A215C81.2060709@nhcc.net> From: "Robert Frick" > Was it a matter of judgment that I decided that pass was an LA? I don't > think so. ?!!! Whether something is a LA or not is the classic example of a judgment ruling. What else could it be? With regard to Grattan's concern: playing a cue bid as "invitational raise or better" is almost universal here in the states. Of course the TD should confirm that the pair in question is indeed playing this way. It also needs to be confirmed that the 3D bid is a cue and not natural, as it would be for some. More relevant is how the pair in question play their overcalls. If a two-level overcall in this sequence is serious business, as it will be for most strong players, then pass is indeed not a LA. If the overcall could be trash, as many (mostly weaker) pairs play it, then passing is not only a LA, it's the normal action. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 30 20:30:35 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 19:30:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <4A215C81.2060709@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002601c9e154$bae19c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > From: "Robert Frick" >> Was it a matter of judgment that I decided that pass was an LA? I don't >> think so. > > ?!!! Whether something is a LA or not is the classic example of a > judgment ruling. What else could it be? > > With regard to Grattan's concern: playing a cue bid as "invitational > raise or better" is almost universal here in the states. Of course the > TD should confirm that the pair in question is indeed playing this way. > It also needs to be confirmed that the 3D bid is a cue and not > natural, as it would be for some. > > More relevant is how the pair in question play their overcalls. If a > two-level overcall in this sequence is serious business, as it will be > for most strong players, then pass is indeed not a LA. If the overcall > could be trash, as many (mostly weaker) pairs play it, then passing is > not only a LA, it's the normal action. > +=+ Now we are talking. Someone has picked up the drift of my argument. Opposite the overcall responder has (at least) two ways forward. He can raise direct to 4H or he can make an invitational bid and then, if partner signs off, raise to game. There has to be a difference of meaning between them. One might suppose that 4H could be bid on any hand that has no thought of a slam. East might respond 3D and 4H on a hand that does not rule out possibilities of a slam. If this is the case we must examine the overcall. On what types of hands will West overcall 2H? Would it perhaps require the 2H to be, at the upper end of its range, a hand that cannot afford a pass from East on a hand that would make game - and if this is the case what is West doing making a slam try on the trash he has in his hand? At minimum let us recognize that there are things the Director should explore here before leaping into a blind judgement based upon what he/we would do using his/our own methods. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 30 21:36:11 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 15:36:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <002601c9e154$bae19c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A215C81.2060709@nhcc.net> <002601c9e154$bae19c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 May 2009 14:30:35 -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: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 5:19 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > >> From: "Robert Frick" >>> Was it a matter of judgment that I decided that pass was an LA? I don't >>> think so. >> >> ?!!! Whether something is a LA or not is the classic example of a >> judgment ruling. What else could it be? >> >> With regard to Grattan's concern: playing a cue bid as "invitational >> raise or better" is almost universal here in the states. Of course the >> TD should confirm that the pair in question is indeed playing this way. >> It also needs to be confirmed that the 3D bid is a cue and not >> natural, as it would be for some. >> >> More relevant is how the pair in question play their overcalls. If a >> two-level overcall in this sequence is serious business, as it will be >> for most strong players, then pass is indeed not a LA. If the overcall >> could be trash, as many (mostly weaker) pairs play it, then passing is >> not only a LA, it's the normal action. >> > +=+ Now we are talking. Someone has picked up the drift of my > argument. > Opposite the overcall responder has (at least) two ways > forward. He can raise direct to 4H or he can make an invitational > bid and then, if partner signs off, raise to game. There has to be a > difference of meaning between them. One might suppose that 4H > could be bid on any hand that has no thought of a slam. East might > respond 3D and 4H on a hand that does not rule out possibilities > of a slam. > If this is the case we must examine the overcall. On what types > of hands will West overcall 2H? Would it perhaps require the 2H > to be, at the upper end of its range, a hand that cannot afford a > pass from East on a hand that would make game - and if this is > the case what is West doing making a slam try on the trash he has > in his hand? > At minimum let us recognize that there are things the Director > should explore here before leaping into a blind judgement based > upon what he/we would do using his/our own methods. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Hi. As far as I could determine, the 3D was taken by both players as being invitational or better with heart support. It asks the 2H bidder to go to 4 with extra values. West's self-report is that he was deciding whether to bid 3H or 4H, which is essentially whether or not he had sufficient extra values. It was clear from other tables that just knowing a player had an opening hand was enough to justify a raise to 4H. I realized at the time that it was critical what West could have for his 2H overcall. However, I am not going to admit that a piece of information is critical when I don't have a good way to find it out. In ACBL-land, everyone knows the range for an overcall at the one level. It's on the card. I am guessing that players are unlikely to discuss the strength needed for a two level overcall, especially in that situation. So I can ask East and West how strong their overcalls are in that situation. But they will only have a feeling, which will be easily influenced by their desires, whether they realize that or not. As we are now talking about self-serving unverifiable testimony, the opportunity is ideal for distorted report. I think the 3D bid is better than a straightforward jump to 4H. It shows HCP, whereas a jump to 4H could be pre-emptive. But I don't know how this partnership played that. In hindsight, no one is bidding 3D except him; the people who want to be in 4H no matter what are just bidding 4H. Perhaps here I was assuming my own methods too much. I was also influenced by the fact that NS said that East thought a long time before bidding 4H. But I didn't want to get into admitting that was relevant, because essentially either East was going to agree or I wasn't going to believe him. So to summarize, I certainly agree with Grattan that the issue should be what players would bid if they had the same methods. But in practice that gets difficult, and I am not sure I should ever have to use self-report to determine a pair's methods. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 30 21:53:37 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 15:53:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <4A215C81.2060709@nhcc.net> References: <4A215C81.2060709@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 May 2009 12:19:13 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" >> Was it a matter of judgment that I decided that pass was an LA? I don't >> think so. > > ?!!! Whether something is a LA or not is the classic example of a > judgment ruling. What else could it be? I have taken a poll. 2 people go to game with this hand no matter what, and 2 do not. I now have to determine whether not bidding game would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. Where is the judgment in that? I am saying I can't see any. I am guessing that every director would come to the same conclusion. I am assuming that 50% is a significant proportion; that judgment could be questioned I agree. I am lumping the jump to 4H with bidding 3D and then jumping to 4H, so I guess that could be questioned by the NOS had they lost the ruling. So I agree there is room for dispute. I am just trying to say that 2/4 leads straight to LA. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 30 23:17:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 22:17:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: <4A215C81.2060709@nhcc.net><002601c9e154$bae19c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <003f01c9e16d$5d8e46e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > On Sat, 30 May 2009 14:30:35 -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: "Steve Willner" >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 5:19 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling >> >> >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>>> Was it a matter of judgment that I decided that pass was an LA? I don't >>>> think so. >>> >>> ?!!! Whether something is a LA or not is the classic example of a >>> judgment ruling. What else could it be? >>> >>> With regard to Grattan's concern: playing a cue bid as "invitational >>> raise or better" is almost universal here in the states. Of course the >>> TD should confirm that the pair in question is indeed playing this way. >>> It also needs to be confirmed that the 3D bid is a cue and not >>> natural, as it would be for some. >>> >>> More relevant is how the pair in question play their overcalls. If a >>> two-level overcall in this sequence is serious business, as it will be >>> for most strong players, then pass is indeed not a LA. If the overcall >>> could be trash, as many (mostly weaker) pairs play it, then passing is >>> not only a LA, it's the normal action. >>> >> +=+ Now we are talking. Someone has picked up the drift of my >> argument. >> Opposite the overcall responder has (at least) two ways >> forward. He can raise direct to 4H or he can make an invitational >> bid and then, if partner signs off, raise to game. There has to be a >> difference of meaning between them. One might suppose that 4H >> could be bid on any hand that has no thought of a slam. East might >> respond 3D and 4H on a hand that does not rule out possibilities >> of a slam. >> If this is the case we must examine the overcall. On what types >> of hands will West overcall 2H? Would it perhaps require the 2H >> to be, at the upper end of its range, a hand that cannot afford a >> pass from East on a hand that would make game - and if this is >> the case what is West doing making a slam try on the trash he has >> in his hand? >> At minimum let us recognize that there are things the Director >> should explore here before leaping into a blind judgement based >> upon what he/we would do using his/our own methods. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Hi. As far as I could determine, the 3D was taken by both players as being > invitational or better with heart support. It asks the 2H bidder to go to > 4 with extra values. West's self-report is that he was deciding whether to > bid 3H or 4H, which is essentially whether or not he had sufficient extra > values. It was clear from other tables that just knowing a player had an > opening hand was enough to justify a raise to 4H. > > I realized at the time that it was critical what West could have for his > 2H overcall. However, I am not going to admit that a piece of information > is critical when I don't have a good way to find it out. In ACBL-land, > everyone knows the range for an overcall at the one level. It's on the > card. I am guessing that players are unlikely to discuss the strength > needed for a two level overcall, especially in that situation. > > So I can ask East and West how strong their overcalls are in that > situation. But they will only have a feeling, which will be easily > influenced by their desires, whether they realize that or not. As we are > now talking about self-serving unverifiable testimony, the opportunity is > ideal for distorted report. > > I think the 3D bid is better than a straightforward jump to 4H. It shows > HCP, whereas a jump to 4H could be pre-emptive. But I don't know how this > partnership played that. In hindsight, no one is bidding 3D except him; > the people who want to be in 4H no matter what are just bidding 4H. > Perhaps here I was assuming my own methods too much. > > I was also influenced by the fact that NS said that East thought a long > time before bidding 4H. But I didn't want to get into admitting that was > relevant, because essentially either East was going to agree or I wasn't > going to believe him. > > So to summarize, I certainly agree with Grattan that the issue should be > what players would bid if they had the same methods. But in practice that > gets difficult, and I am not sure I should ever have to use self-report to > determine a pair's methods. > +=+ 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]. But let us now look back to the original exposition of the case: ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 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 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' We are told the 3D shows 10+ HCP and heart support. West apparently told him his hand was not worth game opposite that. East went on to game, seemingly implying that was not his interest, in which case what other than slam interest can he have shown? And comparing his hand with the minimum he has shown, where are the extra values to justify slam interest? He can do what he likes if West makes his bid in due tempo but, given our premise, in my belief if there is a hesitation it sucks to let the contract stand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wrgptfan at gmail.com Sat May 30 23:54:03 2009 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 17:54:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <002601c9e154$bae19c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A215C81.2060709@nhcc.net> <002601c9e154$bae19c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On May 30, 2009, at 2:30 PM, "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: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 5:19 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > >> From: "Robert Frick" >>> Was it a matter of judgment that I decided that pass was an LA? I >>> don't >>> think so. >> >> ?!!! Whether something is a LA or not is the classic example of a >> judgment ruling. What else could it be? >> >> With regard to Grattan's concern: playing a cue bid as "invitational >> raise or better" is almost universal here in the states. Of course >> the >> TD should confirm that the pair in question is indeed playing this >> way. >> It also needs to be confirmed that the 3D bid is a cue and not >> natural, as it would be for some. >> >> More relevant is how the pair in question play their overcalls. If a >> two-level overcall in this sequence is serious business, as it will >> be >> for most strong players, then pass is indeed not a LA. If the >> overcall >> could be trash, as many (mostly weaker) pairs play it, then passing >> is >> not only a LA, it's the normal action. >> > +=+ Now we are talking. Someone has picked up the drift of my > argument. > Opposite the overcall responder has (at least) two ways > forward. He can raise direct to 4H or he can make an invitational > bid and then, if partner signs off, raise to game. There has to be a > difference of meaning between them. One might suppose that 4H > could be bid on any hand that has no thought of a slam. East might > respond 3D and 4H on a hand that does not rule out possibilities > of a slam. > If this is the case we must examine the overcall. On what types > of hands will West overcall 2H? Would it perhaps require the 2H > to be, at the upper end of its range, a hand that cannot afford a > pass from East on a hand that would make game - and if this is > the case what is West doing making a slam try on the trash he has > in his hand? Slam try? Usually a cue and then a raise to game sets up a forcing pass sequence in competitive auctions - not a slam try. I could not imagine the hand in question languishing in a part score. > > At minimum let us recognize that there are things the Director > should explore here before leaping into a blind judgement based > upon what he/we would do using his/our own methods. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wrgptfan at gmail.com Sun May 31 00:02:38 2009 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 18:02:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <003f01c9e16d$5d8e46e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A215C81.2060709@nhcc.net><002601c9e154$bae19c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <003f01c9e16d$5d8e46e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <0909F635-1C71-48F4-8E31-7EF2625FF125@gmail.com> On May 30, 2009, at 5:17 PM, "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: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:36 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling > > >> On Sat, 30 May 2009 14:30:35 -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: "Steve Willner" >>> To: >>> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 5:19 PM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation ruling >>> >>> >>>> From: "Robert Frick" >>>>> Was it a matter of judgment that I decided that pass was an LA? >>>>> I don't >>>>> think so. >>>> >>>> ?!!! Whether something is a LA or not is the classic example of a >>>> judgment ruling. What else could it be? >>>> >>>> With regard to Grattan's concern: playing a cue bid as >>>> "invitational >>>> raise or better" is almost universal here in the states. Of >>>> course the >>>> TD should confirm that the pair in question is indeed playing >>>> this way. >>>> It also needs to be confirmed that the 3D bid is a cue and not >>>> natural, as it would be for some. >>>> >>>> More relevant is how the pair in question play their overcalls. >>>> If a >>>> two-level overcall in this sequence is serious business, as it >>>> will be >>>> for most strong players, then pass is indeed not a LA. If the >>>> overcall >>>> could be trash, as many (mostly weaker) pairs play it, then >>>> passing is >>>> not only a LA, it's the normal action. >>>> >>> +=+ Now we are talking. Someone has picked up the drift of my >>> argument. >>> Opposite the overcall responder has (at least) two ways >>> forward. He can raise direct to 4H or he can make an invitational >>> bid and then, if partner signs off, raise to game. There has to be a >>> difference of meaning between them. One might suppose that 4H >>> could be bid on any hand that has no thought of a slam. East might >>> respond 3D and 4H on a hand that does not rule out possibilities >>> of a slam. >>> If this is the case we must examine the overcall. On what types >>> of hands will West overcall 2H? Would it perhaps require the 2H >>> to be, at the upper end of its range, a hand that cannot afford a >>> pass from East on a hand that would make game - and if this is >>> the case what is West doing making a slam try on the trash he has >>> in his hand? >>> At minimum let us recognize that there are things the Director >>> should explore here before leaping into a blind judgement based >>> upon what he/we would do using his/our own methods. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Hi. As far as I could determine, the 3D was taken by both players >> as being >> invitational or better with heart support. It asks the 2H bidder to >> go to >> 4 with extra values. West's self-report is that he was deciding >> whether to >> bid 3H or 4H, which is essentially whether or not he had sufficient >> extra >> values. It was clear from other tables that just knowing a player >> had an >> opening hand was enough to justify a raise to 4H. >> >> I realized at the time that it was critical what West could have >> for his >> 2H overcall. However, I am not going to admit that a piece of >> information >> is critical when I don't have a good way to find it out. In ACBL- >> land, >> everyone knows the range for an overcall at the one level. It's on >> the >> card. I am guessing that players are unlikely to discuss the strength >> needed for a two level overcall, especially in that situation. >> >> So I can ask East and West how strong their overcalls are in that >> situation. But they will only have a feeling, which will be easily >> influenced by their desires, whether they realize that or not. As >> we are >> now talking about self-serving unverifiable testimony, the >> opportunity is >> ideal for distorted report. >> >> I think the 3D bid is better than a straightforward jump to 4H. It >> shows >> HCP, whereas a jump to 4H could be pre-emptive. But I don't know >> how this >> partnership played that. In hindsight, no one is bidding 3D except >> him; >> the people who want to be in 4H no matter what are just bidding 4H. >> Perhaps here I was assuming my own methods too much. >> >> I was also influenced by the fact that NS said that East thought a >> long >> time before bidding 4H. But I didn't want to get into admitting >> that was >> relevant, because essentially either East was going to agree or I >> wasn't >> going to believe him. >> >> So to summarize, I certainly agree with Grattan that the issue >> should be >> what players would bid if they had the same methods. But in >> practice that >> gets difficult, and I am not sure I should ever have to use self- >> report to >> determine a pair's methods. >> > +=+ 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]. > But let us now look back to the original exposition of the > case: > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > 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 There is a good play for game opposite Qxx Axxxxx xx xx My partners occasionally have more than that. YMMV. > > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > ''' > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > We are told the 3D shows 10+ HCP and heart support. > West apparently told him his hand was not worth game > opposite that. > East went on to game, seemingly implying that was not > his interest, in which case what other than slam interest > can he have shown? And comparing his hand with the > minimum he has shown, where are the extra values to > justify slam interest? > He can do what he likes if West makes his bid in due > tempo but, given our premise, in my belief if there is a > hesitation it sucks to let the contract stand. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Sun May 31 00:14:08 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 18:14:08 EDT Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling Message-ID: East had: Kxx 108xxx AJ10x K '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' We are told the 3D shows 10+ HCP and heart support.West apparently told him his hand was not worth game opposite that.East went on to game, seemingly implying that was not his interest, in which case what other than slam interest can he have shown? And comparing his hand with the minimum he has shown, where are the extra values to justify slam interest? He can do what he likes if West makes his bid in due tempo but, given our premise, in my belief if there is a hesitation it sucks to let the contract stand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [paul lamford] The non-sequitur in the above argument is "what other than slam interest can he have shown". When we have a raise to game we do not bid 1H - 4H, as that shows a different hand. When we have a raise to game we do not bid 1H - (Double) - 4H as partner will have no idea what to do over the possible 4S. The hand in question, in my book, in average player's books and in your book is worth a raise to game. Not a pre-emptive raise to game but a value raise to game. Now I agree that it is unlikely we will hear from the opponents again, although it is quite possible the 1NT bidder could be bidding 5C, especially if he has a void heart. We therefore want to show values and this is why we start with 3D. The question of passing 3H does not arise. Now you may find very weak players passing. In my beginner's class quiz, 5 out of 40 of my students passed a 2D response to an opening 2C with Ax Ax KQJTxxx AK. So, if the 2D bid was slow, would you therefore impose a pass on this hand? Of course you would not. The Pass is not "demonstrably suggested" by the BIT, which is the other requirement that you overlook in your argument. The 3D bidder does not have a game invitation - he has a game force, so Pass is not "demonstrably suggested" by the BIT. In many situations I agree with you; it does suck when a player shows a marginal bid by a BIT and his partner takes an optimistic view. And as Mr Burn is fond of saying, bridge players rarely overbid slowly, so a BIT suggests extras. But, please, let us confine adjustments to situations where a bid is not completely automatic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090530/03e41e33/attachment.html From Gampas at aol.com Sun May 31 14:25:57 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 08:25:57 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 (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? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090531/c48abdc7/attachment.html From karel at esatclear.ie Sun May 31 14:41:07 2009 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 13:41:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <002601c9e154$bae19c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4A215C81.2060709@nhcc.net> <002601c9e154$bae19c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> 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 (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 ------------------ Great hand I have to say. lets say a light opener 10 count + 11 our hand + 7 - 9 for 1NT (1NT opposite a minor tends to have more than the default 1NT response to a major) - leaving pd with 9 -12 points. Pd has at least 3 spades and at least 5 hearts. Assuming 1NT bidder has 2/3 hearts then opener has 1 or none and yet didnt bid over 2H. Opener looks like 3154 or similar shape and minimal. I personally dont think pd has 4 spades else they could double or bid 2D to try and get both majors in. If pd does have both majors then the spades must be weak compared to the hearts. So pd is looking like 5314 or 6313 or 6304. 3D was alerted as a good raise. A slam try is ridiculous. The precise cards pd needs to make a slam given the tight constraints, a mere 2H overcall AND which can be bid sensibly are low low low. If slam was your aim then 3S or 4C over 3H is surely right now. No as per previous post 3D is simply telling pd I have some values and I'm not raising pre-emptively incase the opps find 5C. Is it worth 4H over a minimal 3H bid is the question? I dont know. I can see arguments for passing ... CK cant be counted, 5 trumps yes but doesnt garuntee no heart loser (HKxxxx and Cx is much stronger), SK while good could get nailed if SA is over it, while not likely it is possible pd has Dxx. After the 3H bid the cards we need to cover our losers have got significantly lower. I wouldnt be as optimistic now as 1 round ago. Having said that personally I'd bid 4H (I think I'd have bid 4D or 4C or 4H 1st time tbh (especially to avoid precisely this situation). If opps bid 5C I double, take the money). The spade ace rates to be right and i'd expect to lose 3 tricks at most. CK is dubious, 5th heart is good, singleton club is good, DAJT good and SK good, so I think 4H will make more often than it goes down. Still - I'd have to be there and see could N/S convince me. K. From wmevius at hotmail.com Sun May 31 14:50:24 2009 From: wmevius at hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 13:50:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <4A215C81.2060709@nhcc.net> <002601c9e154$bae19c20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: the fact that the bidder bid 3D initially (not a slamtry as you said) meant that he felt that he needed a bit more from pd. I would have bid 4H probably, but maybe this partnership uses light overcalls over 1NT in the sandwich. Anyway, the pause made the 4H bid more attractive: result should go back to 3H (if 4H was making that is). Can we still give penalties for blatant abuse of unauthorized information? If so, those might apply here... Willem Mevius wmevius at hotmail.com > Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 13:41:07 +0100 > From: karel at esatclear.ie > To: blml at rtflb.org > 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 > > ------------------ > > Great hand I have to say. lets say a light opener 10 count + 11 our > hand + 7 - 9 for 1NT (1NT opposite a minor tends to have more than the > default 1NT response to a major) - leaving pd with 9 -12 points. > > Pd has at least 3 spades and at least 5 hearts. Assuming 1NT bidder > has 2/3 hearts then opener has 1 or none and yet didnt bid over 2H. > Opener looks like 3154 or similar shape and minimal. I personally > dont think pd has 4 spades else they could double or bid 2D to try and > get both majors in. If pd does have both majors then the spades must > be weak compared to the hearts. > > So pd is looking like 5314 or 6313 or 6304. > > 3D was alerted as a good raise. A slam try is ridiculous. The > precise cards pd needs to make a slam given the tight constraints, a > mere 2H overcall AND which can be bid sensibly are low low low. If > slam was your aim then 3S or 4C over 3H is surely right now. > > No as per previous post 3D is simply telling pd I have some values and > I'm not raising pre-emptively incase the opps find 5C. Is it worth 4H > over a minimal 3H bid is the question? I dont know. I can see > arguments for passing ... CK cant be counted, 5 trumps yes but doesnt > garuntee no heart loser (HKxxxx and Cx is much stronger), SK while > good could get nailed if SA is over it, while not likely it is > possible pd has Dxx. After the 3H bid the cards we need to cover our > losers have got significantly lower. I wouldnt be as optimistic now > as 1 round ago. > > Having said that personally I'd bid 4H (I think I'd have bid 4D or 4C > or 4H 1st time tbh (especially to avoid precisely this situation). If > opps bid 5C I double, take the money). The spade ace rates to be > right and i'd expect to lose 3 tricks at most. CK is dubious, 5th > heart is good, singleton club is good, DAJT good and SK good, so I > think 4H will make more often than it goes down. > > Still - I'd have to be there and see could N/S convince me. > > 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/20090531/8ce6a4f4/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 31 15:02:07 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 14:02:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: Message-ID: <001901c9e1f0$04e83fe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: On Sun, 31 May 2009 08:25:57 -0400, wrote: > N E S W > 1D P 1NT 2H > P 3D(1) P 3H(2) > P 4H > (1) showing 10+ points and heart support > (2) Standard Hesitation. NS said it was long, EW agreed there was a > hesitation. Later W argued that he "had his hesitation", probably > missing > the point > . > East had: > Kxx > 108xxx > AJ10x > K > Do we have the vulnerability and form of scoring, please, for the above > deal, as I would like to put it on one or two other forums? Matchpoints, no one vulnerable. However, I had indirectly implied that EW were vulnerable, so some of the discussants here might be assuming that. This was ACBL-land, so a weighted score wasn't very feasible. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 31 15:42:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 14:42:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling References: Message-ID: <004901c9e1f5$a49057d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott From: "Robert Frick" > I have taken a poll. 2 people go to game with this hand no matter what, > and 2 do not. ... > Where is the judgment in that? You are saying the judgment is easy to make, given the poll results. Perhaps you're right, but using a poll to aid your judgment in no way changes the nature of the question. Perhaps you're confused by sports reporters' use of "judgment call," which in their context means something else entirely. (In bridge, we would call that a "question of fact.") From: "Grattan" > what other than slam interest can [East] have shown? As Paul Lamford and (I think) others have written, it's normal to use the cue...4H sequence to show a value raise, whereas a direct 4H shows a purely preemptive raise. The TD needs to find out what methods _this_ partnership uses. Asking East why he didn't bid 4H on the previous round would be a good start. From: Gampas at aol.com > The 3D bidder does not have a game invitation - he has a game force, > so Pass is not "demonstrably suggested" by the BIT. This is confused. While it's important to determine the meaning of the hesitation and what, if anything, it demonstrably suggests, the hand the 3D bidder happens to hold is not relevant in this case. The slow signoff undeniably suggests extra values; the only question is whether passing is a LA or not. Given the testimony we've seen, I'm inclined to believe pass is a LA for the player concerned, but if I were on an AC, I'd have some more questions to ask. By the way, this is not a case for a weighted or split score unless there's doubt about how many tricks would be won in a 3H contract. If 4H is legal, the table result stands. If not, the score is adjusted to the (likely/at all probable or weighted) result in 3H. As I understand the case, 11 tricks were automatic. From Gampas at aol.com Sun May 31 21:43:48 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 15:43:48 EDT Subject: [BLML] Hesitation ruling Message-ID: +=+ 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 ~ +=+ [paul lamford[ I would agree that the director should always establish the methods of the partnership, in order to establish what logical alternatives are. We are left to speculate on what these might be, and this is an unavoidable constraint on making a final decision for any forum or newsgroup where the original infractors are not to hand. If you jump to 4H you deserve to have it go (5D) 5H by partner who thinks you have a pre-emptive hand. In another thread you wrote "It looks as though he asked partner to decide, then reassessed his judgement after partner's hesitation." To me it looks like he was about to show a value raise to 4H which is what he was looking at. There are no grounds for your supposition at all. We are told the methods: 3D shows an invitational raise or better. By implication 3H is a weak raise and 4H is a distributional raise. Or something along those lines. We make our decisions based on the information we can collect, giving the balance of doubt to the non-offenders, but not approaching the problem with the sceptisim you advocated. Where in the rules does it say that? If you bid 4H instead, then you will miss a slam opposite Qx AKxxxx x Axxx, a completely normal 2H bid. But then you have already ruled out slam on the "trash" - your words not mine - that East has. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090531/6e013ff7/attachment.html