From henk at ripe.net Sun Nov 1 01:01:01 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 1 04:30:21 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:30:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 10: what is a BIT? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694eadd40910312030s61341d5cy452adf15c5b673be@mail.gmail.com> 2009/10/1 Harald Skj?ran > > In Norway, the double of 3NT by east and 4H by south should be (I > want's say would be) preceded by a stop warning. Any non-pass call > (and conventional passes) from the 2-level and upwards in a > competitive auction are treated in the same manner as skip bids. I like that rule! How has it worked in practice? Any trouble explaining it to the players? -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 1 04:46:05 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:46:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ cases posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd40909271911n12604ea5h57a191205f60b20f@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40909271905l6944161exc643eb3e3387f1fa@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909271911n12604ea5h57a191205f60b20f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40910312046g36c3875aqf35e46b0779db6ce@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:11 PM, I wrote: > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Washington2009.html > > I haven't yet started to write my comments. > > If you want to discuss any of these cases please create a separate > thread and include the case number in the Subject. I've just posted my comments on the Non-NABC+ cases, as well as updated comments on the NABC+ cases: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgndvpb2_101fnrbw6fq -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 1 09:28:59 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:28:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 10: what is a BIT? In-Reply-To: <694eadd40910312030s61341d5cy452adf15c5b673be@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40910312030s61341d5cy452adf15c5b673be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001ca5acd$5c53c5f0$14fb51d0$@no> On Behalf Of Adam Wildavsky > 2009/10/1 Harald Skj?ran > > > > In Norway, the double of 3NT by east and 4H by south should be (I > > want's say would be) preceded by a stop warning. Any non-pass call > > (and conventional passes) from the 2-level and upwards in a > > competitive auction are treated in the same manner as skip bids. > > I like that rule! How has it worked in practice? Any trouble explaining it to the > players? It greatly simplifies the Director's work on hesitations in competitive auctions, and no, we have no trouble explaining it to the players. (A competitive auction is defined as one where both sides have contributed with at least one call other than a non-conventional pass during the last previous round of the auction) Regards Sven From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Nov 1 16:09:01 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:09:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Washington non-NABC+ Case 4 Message-ID: Case: East led the SJ, North asked about the lead, and West explained as "attitude." What was important to North about the lead was whether it denied the SK; he would have chosen a different line of play if he had known that West had the SK. Adam Widalvsky's comment: I agree that the appeal had no merit. I would have adjusted the NS score as well. The explanation was inadequate, and as far as I can tell from the write-up the convention card was not filled in correctly. The relevant part of the card was filled in correctly. "Coded 9/10s" may have been written in the carding section, but there is no obligation to write that at all if the leads are properly circled. While KJTx is not one of the holdings on the card, AJT9 is and E/W had the T circled. In most leading systems, the same card is led from KJTx and AJTx, so I would expect the J to deny the K. (A more common problem is for players to write "Coded 9/10s" under the leads but not to circle anything; if E/W had done that, I would give them a PP.) Ultimately, I agree with the split ruling. North knew that he had incomplete information, as "attitude" is not relevant to the jack, and he should have either asked for a clarification or checked the card properly. If he found that KJTx was not on the card, he would then know that he needed to ask for clarification. Meanwhile, West didn't correct the MI when she realized that she had given MI; she was not looking at partner's lead when she said "attitude", but once she noticed the jack, she should have known that her explanation was incomplete. The one case for ruling an adjustment for North is that the follow-up question would give AI that the opponents were not entitled to. I don't think this is the case; once North asks about the jack lead, he must have an interest in the higher honors. (And, for that matter, I believe it is proper to determine the defensive agreements at trick one even if you know what the lead means on this hand; you may want to falsecard later on.) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Nov 1 19:03:18 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:03:18 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 10: what is a BIT? References: <694eadd40910312030s61341d5cy452adf15c5b673be@mail.gmail.com> <000001ca5acd$5c53c5f0$14fb51d0$@no> Message-ID: From: "Sven Pran" On Behalf Of Adam Wildavsky > 2009/10/1 Harald Skj?ran > > In Norway, the double of 3NT by east and 4H by south should be > > (I > > want's say would be) preceded by a stop warning. Any non-pass > > call > > (and conventional passes) from the 2-level and upwards in a > > competitive auction are treated in the same manner as skip bids. > > I like that rule! How has it worked in practice? Any trouble > explaining it to the > players? It greatly simplifies the Director's work on hesitations in competitive auctions, and no, we have no trouble explaining it to the players. (A competitive auction is defined as one where both sides have contributed with at least one call other than a non-conventional pass during the last previous round of the auction) Why not extend that rule to all competitive auctions at whatever level? Also, passes before the bidding starts should be routinely slow. In our club you can tell how many HCP many players have by the time it takes them to pass, and I don't mean neophytes. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 1 21:15:27 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:15:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 10: what is a BIT? In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40910312030s61341d5cy452adf15c5b673be@mail.gmail.com> <000001ca5acd$5c53c5f0$14fb51d0$@no> Message-ID: <002f01ca5b30$0dcd32f0$296798d0$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin L French > From: "Sven Pran" > > On Behalf Of Adam Wildavsky > > > 2009/10/1 Harald Skj?ran > > > > In Norway, the double of 3NT by east and 4H by south should be (I > > > want's say would be) preceded by a stop warning. Any non-pass call > > > (and conventional passes) from the 2-level and upwards in a > > > competitive auction are treated in the same manner as skip bids. > > > > I like that rule! How has it worked in practice? Any trouble > > explaining it > to the > > players? > > It greatly simplifies the Director's work on hesitations in competitive auctions, and > no, we have no trouble explaining it to the players. > > (A competitive auction is defined as one where both sides have contributed with at > least one call other than a non-conventional pass during the last previous round > of the auction) > > Why not extend that rule to all competitive auctions at whatever level? Also, > passes before the bidding starts should be routinely slow. In our club you can tell > how many HCP many players have by the time it takes them to pass, and I don't > mean neophytes. Frankly I have a big problem understanding this suggestion (no offence intended!) Except that ALL auctions are competitive in the way that there are two sides competing to reach the contract most favourable for themselves I don't quite see how an auction can be competitive for the purpose of requiring STOP until after both sides have contributed with a "positive" call (a call other than a non-conventional pass). The Norwegian regulation does not consider such competition to become "active" until the auction has reached the three-level, but from there on the STOP requirement lasts all the way up so long as no side "gives up" and both players on that side passes (naturally) on a round. (If any of them then reenters the auction with a positive call then STOP again becomes mandatory.) If your suggestion was ironically intended I regret that I missed the irony. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 1 22:37:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:37:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8F18C8BA658949BB89874BD9667C3749@Mildred> Message-ID: Steve Willner, parallel thread: >>I'd do it any time the opponents are obviously unhappy. Also if >>the opponents are beginners and don't know the rules. Of course >>the last time this happened to me (at last year's Fall NABC), a >>well-known National TD was clueless what I was calling him about. >>The issue was my own potential "use of UI," and though I believed >>at the time what I'd done was OK, the opponents looked unhappy or >>at least confused. (The well-known NTD eventually wandered away >>without making any ruling whatsoever.) Grattan Endicott, personal opinion: >+=+ I think the Director actually ruled that there had been no >irregularity, by default as it were. If this view is adopted then >either side has a right of appeal under Law 92A. Probably Law 83 >covers his decision, clarifying that it may be appealed. > >After all, a decision to do nothing is still a decision, and if it >infers that the Director considers there has been no irregularity >(what else?) there is a decision as to fact. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 84A - Rulings on Agreed Facts - No Rectification When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed, he rules as follows: If no rectification is prescribed by law, and there is no occasion for him to exercise his discretionary powers, he directs the players to proceed with the auction or play. Richard Hills, personal opinion: Although a Law 84A ruling maintains the status quo, it is not a so- called "default" ruling, but rather a requirement for the Director to positively assess that no rectification nor discretionary powers are needed. Once or twice I have requested a Law 16 ruling from very competent Directors, who understand that such a judgement ruling should not be provided immediately. They ordered the table to continue with the match, and promised that they would return with the ruling later. But these very competent Directors were also slightly forgetful, due to the multitudinous nature of their tasks, so did not return with a ruling. Did I assume the Director's ruling was "no irregularity" by "default", thus immediately take my Law 16 request to an Appeals Committee? No, I simply and courteously reminded the Director and thus obviated the need for me to appeal. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 2 00:12:53 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:12:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Spiwit of the game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Monty Python's Life of Brian PILATE: The little wascal has spiwit. CENTURION: Has what, sir? PILATE: Spiwit. CENTURION: Yes. He did, sir. PILATE: No, no. Spiwit. Um, bwavado. A touch of dewwing-do. CENTURION: Oh. Ahh, about eleven, sir. Marvin French: >So? That does not mean it's in the spirit of the game. I should >have put it another way: No one thinks it's against the spirit of >the game to fail to call attention to a revoke by one's side. At >least, not those familiar with the traditions of bridge. If failing >to do so is in the spirit of the game, then doing so must not be. > >Lots of proper things are not in the spirit of the game. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: spirit, n. the principle or meaning or purpose underlying the form of a law &c. (opp. letter) WBF Alert Policy, singing a spiritual: "Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter." WBF Code of Practice, dispirited dissonance: "A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 2 02:28:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:28:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Spiwit of the game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887): It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind. The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!" The Second, feeling of the tusk Cried, "Ho! what have we here, So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!" The Third approached the animal, And happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up he spake: "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a snake!" The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee: "What most this wondrous beast is like Is mighty plain," quoth he; "'Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!" The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said: "E'en the blindest man Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a fan!" The Sixth no sooner had begun About the beast to grope, Than, seizing on the swinging tail That fell within his scope. "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a rope!" And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong! Moral: So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen! Marvin French: >>>...that is not in the spirit of the game... Richard Hills: By definition the spirit of the game is not written down in the letter of the Lawbook. So what is it? Is it what the First Wise Man, Marvin French, says are "the traditions of bridge"? Or is it what the Second Wise Man, David Stevenson, differently says are "the traditions of bridge"? David Stevenson, September 2005: >>...the sheer pointlessness of 70% of postings to this list. >>...IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help in rulings - >>as against arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a >>pin. Anne Jones, September 2005: >There was a time when this forum was a superb educational tool for >TDs, as well as being a forum where highly qualified TDs could >discuss the intended meaning of the Laws, and pass judgement on >the accuracy of their wording. > >I recently had a conversation with a regular poster, who expressed >the opinion that it was a good thing that many lesser mortals had >ceased posting. I thought that sentiment was very sad, and >reflected on the names of those who, like myself had surely >benefited over the years from reading the dissertations of those >older and wiser than ourselves. +=+ The only limitation on the expression of opinion should be decency and restraint of language. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ +=+ I did read this statement with interest: " IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help in rulings" and I wondered whether perfection lay in the lack of challenge to questionable guidance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 2 03:50:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:50:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Spiwit of the game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +=+ I did read this statement with interest: " IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help in rulings" and I wondered whether perfection lay in the lack of challenge to questionable guidance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ On the very rare occasions that Grattan expresses a questionable personal opinion, blml has the advantage of many fools (who rush in where angels fear to tread) to challenge that guidance. For example, one controversial personal opinion of Grattan was subject to so much blml debate that it sparked a corporate answer by the WBF Laws Committee, 8th September 2009: 12. The committee returned to the subject of the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected. There was lengthy discussion following which it was determined: (a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call "could well have been influenced by mis- information given to the player". Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3. (b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct information. [*Secretary's note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute indicates that the Regulating Authority may give guidance.] Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 2 04:50:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:50:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Washington non-NABC+ Case 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ACBL Appeals Committee decision: The Decision: North proved that he knew the explanation was inadequate when he examined the convention card. Alert Regulations state: 'An opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.' Since he was an experienced player and he played the same thing, he should have pursued the matter further. Therefore, N/S were awarded the table result of 3NT N making four, N/S plus 430. A large majority of West's peers thought her explanation was inadequate. While she may not have been looking at the lead when she first responded, at some point she had to have seen it and realized that her explanation was inadequate. Thus, Law 40B6(a) was violated and the adjustment required under Law 40B6(b) and 12C1(e)(ii) gives E/W the score for making five minus 460. The panel judged that the appeal did not have significant merit and issued an appeal without merit warning to E/W. Richard Hills, angel dancing on the point of a pin: It seems to me that this split score was unLawful. Before the TD and AC invoked Law 40B6 they should first have examined Law 12B1: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred - but see C1(b)." Richard Hills, angel dancing on the point of a pin: If the MI was so trivial that it was deemed by ACBL regulation to not cause damage, then the score adjustment should be the table score of NS +430 / EW -430. The appropriate way to deal with West's non- damaging MI should be a Law 90 procedural penalty, not a Law 12 split score adjustment. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 2 05:01:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 04:01:40 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Spiwit of the game and the dog that did not bark in the night [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <4D504C8E962D4F7285F0AC6B7D646A59@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 2:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Spiwit of the game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On the very rare occasions that Grattan expresses a > questionable personal opinion, blml has the advantage > of many fools (who rush in where angels fear to tread) > to challenge that guidance. > +=+ I expect a deal of argument to surround my expressions of opinion, although it should not be thought that I do not start with the advantage of advice upon occasion. However, a considerable weight of my thrust is often directed towards establishing what the laws do not say. It is so easy to write into one's idea of the laws, and rely on, words that in truth are not there. I despair of myself at times when I realize that I have been blind to what is not in view. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 2 06:21:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:21:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Spiwit of the game and the dog that did not bark in the night [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D504C8E962D4F7285F0AC6B7D646A59@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ I expect a deal of argument to surround my expressions of opinion, although it should not be thought that I do not start with the advantage of advice upon occasion. However, a considerable weight of my thrust is often directed towards establishing what the laws do not say. It is so easy to write into one's idea of the laws, and rely on, words that in truth are not there. I despair of myself at times when I realize that I have been blind to what is not in view. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ John (MadDog) Probst, 14th November 2008: Beautifully put, Grattan. It is the apparent procedural flaws that concern me far more than the actual outcome. Bridge itself is brought into disrepute. I'm (peace Sancho et al) not concerned about angry Germans; I'm concerned about the thoughts of the pondlife. "When are WE going to suffer haphazard injustice." [The players all played at once without waiting for turns, quarrelling all the while, and fighting for the hedgehogs; and in a very short time the Queen was in a furious passion, and went stamping about, and shouting 'Off with his head!' or 'Off with her head!' about once in a minute.] Alice in Wonderland; Dodgson. cheers John Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 2 10:38:36 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:38:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 12 In-Reply-To: <62A5B82A355A48FD96D44AEC5B9688DD@MARVLAPTOP> References: <62A5B82A355A48FD96D44AEC5B9688DD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: 2009/10/29 Marvin L French : > Okay, this is the last question. > > (12) When in receipt of unauthorized information, should a player > (w) to the extent possible ignore it or (x) if possible avoid taking > an action it suggests? > > ############# > > This one is easy. (w) is Jeff's position I know, because he has > expressed it many times. If you change what you intended to do, then > you are letting UI affect your actions, which is wrong. That belief > is shared by perhaps a majority of players, but it is contrary to > Law 16B1(a), which says you must not choose from among logical > alternatives [defined by Law 16B1(b)] one that could demonstrably > have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. So > (x) is the answer. I agree with Marvin on this. There's still a problem, though. There might be no LA for the particular player involved - if the player don't see any alternative action to the one he was always going to make. There might, however, be for what we consider his peers. > > As Edgar Kaplan wrote in an editorial once, don't blame the law if > you are unhappy with this. Blame partner, ?and tell him to bid in > proper tempo henceforth. > > Jeff may ask what the difference is between unauthorized information > and extraneous information, but I don't know the answer. Anyone? > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 2 14:35:55 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:35:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 12 References: <62A5B82A355A48FD96D44AEC5B9688DD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 12 > 2009/10/29 Marvin L French : Jeff may ask what the difference is between unauthorized information and extraneous information, but I don't know the answer. Anyone? >> Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA >> +=+ Oh come on, Marv. Definitions: 'extraneous' - not part of the lawful procedures of the game. Law 16A3 : "No player may take account of other information (such information being designated extraneous). See Laws 16B, 16C and 16D for various sources of extraneous and unauthorized information Heading of Law 16: 'Authorized and Unauthorized Information'. How much guidance do you need? 'Extraneous' is an envelope and UI is part of the contents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 2 20:06:53 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:06:53 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 12 References: <62A5B82A355A48FD96D44AEC5B9688DD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4D46D244CE574EE0BDEA39CBF9FCD15A@MARVLAPTOP> ----- From: "Grattan" > >> 2009/10/29 Marvin L French : > Jeff may ask what the difference is between unauthorized > information and extraneous information, but I don't know > the answer. Anyone? > +=+ Oh come on, Marv. > Definitions: 'extraneous' - not part of the lawful > procedures of the game. and "unauthorized" is undefined, so may be a subset of extraneous > Law 16A3 : "No player may take account of > other information (such information > being designated extraneous). > See Laws 16B, 16C and 16D for various sources > of extraneous and unauthorized information > Heading of Law 16: 'Authorized and Unauthorized > Information'. > How much guidance do you need? 'Extraneous' is > an envelope and UI is part of the contents. > If UI is a subset of extraneous information (EI) how come L16 is entitled AI and UI, while its contents include three headings entitled "Extraneous Information"? That's confusing. We use L16B Extraneous Information from Partner as a guide for handling UI, but EI and UI are treated as synonymous, calling it EI in B1 and UI in B2. That's confusing. Then L16C Extraneous Information from Other Sources talks about UI and does not mention EI. That's confusing. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 2 20:21:02 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:21:02 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 12 References: <62A5B82A355A48FD96D44AEC5B9688DD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <3ADB13CE3912482CAB608D643614CED6@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Harald Skj?ran" > Marvin L French >> >> (12) When in receipt of unauthorized information, should a player >> (w) to the extent possible ignore it or (x) if possible avoid >> taking >> an action it suggests? >> >> ############# >> >> This one is easy. (w) is Jeff's position I know, because he has >> expressed it many times. If you change what you intended to do, >> then >> you are letting UI affect your actions, which is wrong. That >> belief >> is shared by perhaps a majority of players, but it is contrary to >> Law 16B1(a), which says you must not choose from among logical >> alternatives [defined by Law 16B1(b)] one that could demonstrably >> have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. >> So >> (x) is the answer. > > I agree with Marvin on this. There's still a problem, though. > There > might be no LA for the particular player involved - if the player > don't see any alternative action to the one he was always going to > make. There might, however, be for what we consider his peers. The definistion of LA in L16B1(b) does not consider what alternative actions might be for the particular player, only for his/her class of players using the same methods, so there is no problem. The defintion can be unfair when the player involved is atypical of his/her class, but no one has figured a way around that. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 3 10:55:54 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:55:54 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A propos of very little. Message-ID: Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <9D9D8242821843F3B62805C670947BDD@Mildred> Grattan Endicott +=+ For one reason or another I needed to consult this item in the WBFLC minutes of 2001. I thought it could be worthy of a reprint here. "The Secretary drew attention to the need, if it were the intention of the committee to bar a dummy who has lost his rights from making enquiry of partner under Law 42B1 concerning a play from dummy to add a footnote to Law 43B2(b) to say "*or dummy's hand". The committee decided that this was not its intention; a dummy who has lost his rights should still be allowed to make such an enquiry concerning a play from dummy's hand." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ I might add that I think I missed a trick in not proposing that the 2007 laws should include words to specify this. However, the LC intention is still the same. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Nov 3 14:18:44 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:18:44 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi Message-ID: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> [EBU Orange Book 6G (v) Multi 2D] Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener?s Multi 2D. [Nige1] I posted this case to IBLF forum but would appreciate further elucidation. EBU Autumn Congress Two Stars. MP pairs. LA Partner deals. You hold S:AK94 H- D:A98732 C:J74 2D (P) ?? 2D = Weak two in a major or 22-24 flat. Questions: Do you pass or bid on the given hand? Does this regulation mean that you should *consider* bidding if the condition is satisfied? or Does the regulation mean that you should bid (a) If game is possible opposite a stronger option (here there was only one: 22-24 HCP flat)? (b) If game is possible opposite a stronger version of *a particular weaker option* (say a good weak two in spades)? (c) If game is possible opposite a stronger version of *any weaker option* (including a good weak two in hearts? (d) If, in your judgement, on the balance of probability, bidding will get you a better score? I interpret the regulation to mean (a) but several directors seem to think (d) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Nov 3 14:38:43 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:38:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: 2009/11/3 Nigel Guthrie : > [EBU Orange Book 6G (v) Multi 2D] > Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand > justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener?s Multi 2D. > > [Nige1] > I posted this case to IBLF forum but would appreciate further elucidation. > EBU Autumn Congress Two Stars. MP pairs. LA Partner deals. You hold > S:AK94 H- D:A98732 C:J74 > 2D (P) ?? > 2D = Weak two in a major or 22-24 flat. > > Questions: > Do you pass or bid on the given hand? > Does this regulation mean that you should *consider* bidding if the > condition is satisfied? or > Does the regulation mean that you should bid > (a) If game is possible opposite a stronger option (here there was only > one: 22-24 HCP flat)? > (b) If game is possible opposite a stronger version of *a particular > weaker option* (say a good weak two in spades)? > (c) If game is possible opposite a stronger version of *any weaker > option* (including a good weak two in hearts? > (d) If, in your judgement, on the balance of probability, bidding will > get you a better score? > > I interpret the regulation to mean (a) but several directors seem to > think (d) I'm pretty sure that the intended meaning of the regulation is (a), else it would be quite meaningless. On the other hand, such a regulation seems mistaken to me, since that means you're not allowed to "play bridge" anymore if you're can't pass when you judge passing to be the odds on action for a good score. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 3 14:46:26 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:46:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <4AF03432.7060003@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [EBU Orange Book 6G (v) Multi 2D] > Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand > justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener?s Multi 2D. > AG : of course, this is void of sense, because most versions of Multi include hand types that are strong enough to try for game facing near-zilch. > [Nige1] > I posted this case to IBLF forum but would appreciate further elucidation. > EBU Autumn Congress Two Stars. MP pairs. LA Partner deals. You hold > S:AK94 H- D:A98732 C:J74 > 2D (P) ?? > 2D = Weak two in a major or 22-24 flat. > > Questions: > Do you pass or bid on the given hand? > AG : it's about borderline. If my diamonds were AQ9xxx, I would pass. > Does this regulation mean that you should *consider* bidding if the > condition is satisfied? AG : if that's the way to state it once again it doesn't mean anything ; I could well consider bidding, then decline my own offer on the grounds of probability. And yes, that's the way most would react. > or > Does the regulation mean that you should bid > (a) If game is possible opposite a stronger option (here there was only > one: 22-24 HCP flat)? > As said before, this means 'nearly always', so this is very close to compelling you to play 2D as forcing. However, nobody can deny you the right of passing a forcing bid. This is done everyday, consciously or not, for better or worse. > (b) If game is possible opposite a stronger version of *a particular > weaker option* (say a good weak two in spades)? > AG : mmh, ineffective. If I held Jxxx - void - AKQxxxx - xx it would be a laydown game facing a maxi weak 2S, yet I'd like to pass 2D. > (c) If game is possible opposite a stronger version of *any weaker > option* (including a good weak two in hearts? > (d) If, in your judgement, on the balance of probability, bidding will > get you a better score? > AG : in both those cases, passing would be ridiculous (and even contradictory in the latter case), so that such a regulation would be without effect. Summarizing : (a) is probably the correct answer, yet you're allowed to act differently, because stating that a bid is forcing in your system and bidding in response to it are different things. (after all, a psycher often passes partner's response, even if forcing) KQxxx Kxx Jxx QJ 1S (3H) 4D p ? 4D is unconditionally forcing ; if they asked me, I'd ansver so. Yet : 1) I'd seriously consider passing, especially at pairs. 2) If it turned out to be right (and I'd expect it to be), nobody could deny me my good board. (unless partner turns out to have a weak hand and they rule red psyche) Best regards Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Nov 3 14:50:39 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:50:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl> I can guarantee that I will be better than 90% right in guessing if pd is weak or strong. You can sniff it in the air. I have trouble with a player that guesses right by passing here. Chances are he sniffs it too. The smell is UI. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran Sent: dinsdag 3 november 2009 14:39 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi 2009/11/3 Nigel Guthrie : > [EBU Orange Book 6G (v) Multi 2D] > Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand > justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener?s Multi 2D. > > [Nige1] > I posted this case to IBLF forum but would appreciate further elucidation. > EBU Autumn Congress Two Stars. MP pairs. LA Partner deals. You hold > S:AK94 H- D:A98732 C:J74 > 2D (P) ?? > 2D = Weak two in a major or 22-24 flat. > > Questions: > Do you pass or bid on the given hand? > Does this regulation mean that you should *consider* bidding if the > condition is satisfied? or > Does the regulation mean that you should bid > (a) If game is possible opposite a stronger option (here there was only > one: 22-24 HCP flat)? > (b) If game is possible opposite a stronger version of *a particular > weaker option* (say a good weak two in spades)? > (c) If game is possible opposite a stronger version of *any weaker > option* (including a good weak two in hearts? > (d) If, in your judgement, on the balance of probability, bidding will > get you a better score? > > I interpret the regulation to mean (a) but several directors seem to > think (d) I'm pretty sure that the intended meaning of the regulation is (a), else it would be quite meaningless. On the other hand, such a regulation seems mistaken to me, since that means you're not allowed to "play bridge" anymore if you're can't pass when you judge passing to be the odds on action for a good score. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 3 14:52:15 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:52:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <4AF0358F.80604@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2009/11/3 Nigel Guthrie : > >> [EBU Orange Book 6G (v) Multi 2D] >> Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand >> justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener?s Multi 2D. >> >> [Nige1] >> I posted this case to IBLF forum but would appreciate further elucidation. >> EBU Autumn Congress Two Stars. MP pairs. LA Partner deals. You hold >> S:AK94 H- D:A98732 C:J74 >> 2D (P) ?? >> 2D = Weak two in a major or 22-24 flat. >> >> Questions: >> Do you pass or bid on the given hand? >> Does this regulation mean that you should *consider* bidding if the >> condition is satisfied? or >> Does the regulation mean that you should bid >> (a) If game is possible opposite a stronger option (here there was only >> one: 22-24 HCP flat)? >> (b) If game is possible opposite a stronger version of *a particular >> weaker option* (say a good weak two in spades)? >> (c) If game is possible opposite a stronger version of *any weaker >> option* (including a good weak two in hearts? >> (d) If, in your judgement, on the balance of probability, bidding will >> get you a better score? >> >> I interpret the regulation to mean (a) but several directors seem to >> think (d) >> > > I'm pretty sure that the intended meaning of the regulation is (a), > else it would be quite meaningless. > > On the other hand, such a regulation seems mistaken to me, since that > means you're not allowed to "play bridge" anymore if you're can't pass > when you judge passing to be the odds on action for a good score. > AG : indeed. Here is a life case. You play Stayman as a 1-round force, don't you ? Yet : Kx Qx QJx KJxxxx You open 1NT (12-14) 3rd in hand. Partner bids 2C. The player holding this hand passed. 2C was forcing in their system, of course. So what ? (in case you want to know it, his score was just above average. 1NT plays well and you can get there via 1C-1H-1NT-pass, but passing 1NT would be uncommon ; 2C, 3C and 2NT were the usual contracts) Nobody can tell you when you should bid such-and-such. After all, bridge would be fairly dull if everybody acted the same way in the same circumstances. Decisions are what this game is made of. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 3 15:02:45 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:02:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl> References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl> Message-ID: <4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > I can guarantee that I will be better than 90% right in guessing if pd is weak or strong. You can sniff it in the air. > I have trouble with a player that guesses right by passing here. Chances are he sniffs it too. The smell is UI. > AG : if all my decisions were 90% probable to be right, I'd be playing the World Championships. If I ever judged my passing 2D was 90% probable to turn out right, I would pass without any qualms. From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Nov 3 15:14:36 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:14:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl> <4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl> Somehow I do not think we are talking about the same thing. Without screens the tempo of the 2D bidder will almost always already suggest the strength. And yes, if all players played in a uniform tempo this would not be an issue. In practice though, it is. This will invariably turn out to be a law 16 decision. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: dinsdag 3 november 2009 15:03 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > I can guarantee that I will be better than 90% right in guessing if pd is weak or strong. You can sniff it in the air. > I have trouble with a player that guesses right by passing here. Chances are he sniffs it too. The smell is UI. > AG : if all my decisions were 90% probable to be right, I'd be playing the World Championships. If I ever judged my passing 2D was 90% probable to turn out right, I would pass without any qualms. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 3 15:32:13 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:32:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl> References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl> <4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be> <020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl> Message-ID: <4AF03EED.5050708@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > Somehow I do not think we are talking about the same thing. > Without screens the tempo of the 2D bidder will almost always already suggest the strength. And yes, if all players played in a uniform tempo this would not be an issue. In practice though, it is. > > This will invariably turn out to be a law 16 decision. > AG : agreed. However : 1) if that's the issue, you don't need any regulation about having to answer to 2D. So, what is its object ? Could it be avoiding players to use a multi that's nominally weak or strong, but they don't open the strong version , But that would be illegal in itself, so once again I don't see the point. So, in order to adjudge the rationality of this regulation, I'd like to know what problem it intends to tackle. 2) I don't need any feeling of partner's tempo to know it's right to pass 2D with AKxx - void - AQJxxx - Jxx. 3) I instruct my partners to always take at least a little time before opening our multi-way bids (classical Multi or other). Come to think of it, if the problem is tempo, one would be better off imposing a mandatory pause. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 3 17:53:08 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:53:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <782395536D404B9FBBBB108E5BB2B931@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl> <782395536D404B9FBBBB108E5BB2B931@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4AF05FF4.7020209@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > > You're dead right, Hans. This is a terrfic regulation. I think EBL > should go further > than that and issue more regulations in the same vein. For instance: > > "A player holding 10+HCP after his partner opens or overcalls > a strong 1NT is prohibited from stopping short of game". > > I have trouble with a player who only invites to game holding > 10 HCP after his partner's 1NT and then it turns out the game > doesn't make. I smell UI here. A legal obligation > to bid game with 10+HCP would put a stop to > people cheating that way. > > Or another one: > > "Unless holding a void in a suit partner has bid failure to lead > that suit is an infraction". > > I have trouble with a player who doesn't lead his partner's > suit and it turns out it is a better lead. I smell UI here. > If everybody were legally obliged to lead their > partner's suit that would take away the advantage > the cheaters have now. There would no UI smell any more. > > I think that in the future EBL could issue a book that would > outline bids a player must make for all bidding > sequences with every hand. That would really > remove the UI problem from bridge. > > Anyway EBL's regulation is a good start. Not too difficult to spot the protuberant tongue in Konrad's cheek. Imposing judgment on a player is self-contradictory : you can only use judgment if you're free to do so. May I, however, mention that thisis exactly what "rule of 18" (or any number) does ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 3 20:57:32 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:57:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl> References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl> <4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be> <020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl> Message-ID: <58CEDBB7-8F62-4D55-AB68-A38AC27978FA@starpower.net> On Nov 3, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Somehow I do not think we are talking about the same thing. > Without screens the tempo of the 2D bidder will almost always > already suggest the strength. And yes, if all players played in a > uniform tempo this would not be an issue. In practice though, it is. > > This will invariably turn out to be a law 16 decision. I don't get this. Suppose partner looks at his cards and bids 2D immediately. Or suppose he tanks for three minutes, pulls on his hair for a bit, then bids 2D. How is this going to affect my decision whether to pass with a hand that thinks it wants to play in 2D opposite partner's most lilkey holding(s)? Which one suggests passing more than the other does? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 3 22:18:13 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:18:13 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl><4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be> <020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl> <58CEDBB7-8F62-4D55-AB68-A38AC27978FA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <718B22424CB84426A33DF807EEA7EB43@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi > Or suppose he tanks for three minutes, pulls on his > hair for a bit, then bids 2D. < Two potential problems: either he thinks the hand may be too weak for the multi, or he thinks the hand may be too good for the multi. But my surmise is that it is the latter. With a weak hand he will make up his mind more quickly. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Nov 3 22:21:50 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:21:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas Message-ID: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> [Konrad Ciborowski] You're dead right, Hans. This is a terrfic regulation. I think EBL should go further than that and issue more regulations in the same vein. For instance: "A player holding 10+HCP after his partner opens or overcalls a strong 1NT is prohibited from stopping short of game". I have trouble with a player who only invites to game holding 10 HCP after his partner's 1NT and then it turns out the game doesn't make. I smell UI here. A legal obligation to bid game with 10+HCP would put a stop to people cheating that way. Or another one: "Unless holding a void in a suit partner has bid failure to lead that suit is an infraction". I have trouble with a player who doesn't lead his partner's suit and it turns out it is a better lead. I smell UI here. If everybody were legally obliged to lead their partner's suit that would take away the advantage the cheaters have now. There would no UI smell any more. I think that in the future EBL could issue a book that would outline bids a player must make for all bidding sequences with every hand. That would really remove the UI problem from bridge. Anyway EBL's regulation is a good start. [Nigel] (like most BLMLErs) I understood the regulation to mean that tesponder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener?s Multi 2D. Few players read and understand Orange Book regulations and fewer still abide by them. I agree with Konrad that the multi regulation (whatever it means) is another impediment to playing Bridge. Unfortunately, I sheepishly confess that I have read the Orange book and I play Multi with several partners. We have lost a barrel load of points by masochistically complying with our understanding of the regulation and exploring game when it is likely if partner holds a strong variant. In the case under discussion, against us, an opponent passed his partner's multi and we scored a bottom. Not that I expect sympathy :( Last time I complained, in similar circumstances, BLMLers ridiculed me for following such a stupid rule :) From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Nov 3 22:38:17 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:38:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl><4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be><020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl><58CEDBB7-8F62-4D55-AB68-A38AC27978FA@starpower.net> <718B22424CB84426A33DF807EEA7EB43@Mildred> Message-ID: <22FA03F38F4C4FA39720909314292579@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Defer not till to-morrow to be wise, > To-morrow's sun to thee may never rise." > [William Congreve] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:57 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi > > > >> Or suppose he tanks for three minutes, pulls on his >> hair for a bit, then bids 2D. > < > Two potential problems: either he thinks the hand > may be too weak for the multi, or he thinks the hand > may be too good for the multi. But my surmise is that > it is the latter. With a weak hand he will make up his > mind more quickly. Why? With the weak hand (weak two in a major) there may be a number of problems to consider - point count, suit quality, four-carder in the other major, vulnerabilty, decision if the hand qualifies for the one-bid, shall I open with a three-bid, seat, state of the match (how much you want to generate a swing) etc. In November'2008 Cohen describes that Nickell thought for about 30 seconds before passing with J843 KJ10963 Q5 J in first seat at unfavorable vulnerabilty. On the other hand with a strong balanced hand you count your points and that's pretty much it. There is virtually nothing to think about - it's automatic decision. Quick and easy. You might sometimes upgrade or downgrade the hand but this usually takes a few seconds to decide - the number of factors you have to take into account before making a decision whether to qualify the hand for a 2NT = 21-22 range or 23-24 is nowhere near the one you have to consider when deciding if the hand is a one-bid, weak two bid, three bid or a pass. So I'd say that (at least if the strong version is a strong BAL hand) that the hesitation before 2D strongly suggest weaker version (weak two in a major - borderline or off-beat). Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Strrraszny konkurs z Scooby-Doo! Wez udzial >> http://link.interia.pl/f2412 From blml at arcor.de Tue Nov 3 22:40:14 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:40:14 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <718B22424CB84426A33DF807EEA7EB43@Mildred> References: <718B22424CB84426A33DF807EEA7EB43@Mildred> <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl><4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be> <020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl> <58CEDBB7-8F62-4D55-AB68-A38AC27978FA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <20923676.1257284414200.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Defer not till to-morrow to be wise, > To-morrow's sun to thee may never rise." > [William Congreve] > "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:57 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi > > > > > Or suppose he tanks for three minutes, pulls on his > > hair for a bit, then bids 2D. > < > Two potential problems: either he thinks the hand > may be too weak for the multi, or he thinks the hand > may be too good for the multi. But my surmise is that > it is the latter. With a weak hand he will make up his > mind more quickly. If *I* tank, I will likely have the strong hand, and some distributional flaw where I weighted alternatives. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Nov 3 22:41:28 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:41:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <718B22424CB84426A33DF807EEA7EB43@Mildred> References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl><4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be> <020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl> <58CEDBB7-8F62-4D55-AB68-A38AC27978FA@starpower.net> <718B22424CB84426A33DF807EEA7EB43@Mildred> Message-ID: <002e01ca5cce$66e17370$34a45a50$@com> [EL] Or suppose he tanks for three minutes, pulls on his hair for a bit, then bids 2D. [GE] Two potential problems: either he thinks the hand may be too weak for the multi, or he thinks the hand may be too good for the multi. But my surmise is that it is the latter. With a weak hand he will make up his mind more quickly. [DALB It's not so much that. But AJxxxx xx Qxx xx will more quickly be recognised as a 2D opening than will AKx AQxx KJxx AQ. It takes longer to count to 23 than it does to 7 - at least, for sufficiently small values of 7. David Burn London, England From tedying at yahoo.com Tue Nov 3 23:01:09 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:01:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <58CEDBB7-8F62-4D55-AB68-A38AC27978FA@starpower.net> References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl> <4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be> <020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl> <58CEDBB7-8F62-4D55-AB68-A38AC27978FA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <236456.40714.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> So, based on the flurry of responses, it seems fairly obvious that different players have very different opinions about which hand is harder to quantify as a hesitation. A weak two with flaws, whether a four-card side major or a void, or suit quality, or whether to bid 2D or 3 of the major, or pass can cause a hesitation. A strong hand takes longer to count and with a flaw, say a singleton or singleton honor, may require consideration whether to bid it or not. Judging by the multiple suggestions on both ends about what the hesitation suggests, I think it fair to say that a hesitation or other UI before bidding a Multi suggests that it could be either hand and hence, does not imply one over the other. I don't think either suggests that passing would be a better option since either hand could have a flaw that makes 2D a weaker option than bidding. I would think it would have to be more substantial UI such as reaching for the bottom of the bidding box and then switching to 2D to suggest pass over other options. -Ted Ying. ----- Original Message ---- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 2:57:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi On Nov 3, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Somehow I do not think we are talking about the same thing. > Without screens the tempo of the 2D bidder will almost always > already suggest the strength. And yes, if all players played in a > uniform tempo this would not be an issue. In practice though, it is. > > This will invariably turn out to be a law 16 decision. I don't get this. Suppose partner looks at his cards and bids 2D immediately. Or suppose he tanks for three minutes, pulls on his hair for a bit, then bids 2D. How is this going to affect my decision whether to pass with a hand that thinks it wants to play in 2D opposite partner's most lilkey holding(s)? Which one suggests passing more than the other does? 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 3 23:28:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:28:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF0358F.80604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Law 40B2(a), first sentence: "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or **allow conditionally**, any special partnership understanding." Alain Gottcheiner, Scylla: [snip] >>Nobody can tell you when you should bid such-and-such. After all, >>bridge would be fairly dull if everybody acted the same way in the >>same circumstances. Decisions are what this game is made of. Richard Hills: The EBU regulation enforcing fairly dull bridge where everybody must use the multi in the same way in the same circumstances, thus minimising multi decisions, is legal (if not wise). So Law 40B2(a) means that the EBU can tell Alain when Alain should bid such-and-such unless Alain wishes to exclusively use ordinary partnership understandings without any special partnership understandings. Hans van Staveren, Charybdis: >I can guarantee that I will be better than 90% right in guessing if >pd is weak or strong. You can sniff it in the air. > >I have trouble with a player that guesses right by passing here. >Chances are he sniffs it too. The smell is UI. Richard Hills: 90% right in sniffing the air? Some years ago I must have had a runny nose when I passed pard's multi 2D, but discovered that pard held 21-22 hcp balanced. The obvious game that we missed was crucial in us failing to make Canberra's Interstate Open Team. A.D. Godley (1856-1925): What is this that roareth thus? Can it be a Motor Bus? Yes, the smell and hideous hum Indicat Motorem Bum! Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 4 01:34:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:34:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A propos of very little. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9D9D8242821843F3B62805C670947BDD@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ I might add that I think I missed a trick in not proposing that the 2007 laws should include words to specify this. However, the LC intention is still the same. ~ G ~ +=+ =+= And for once the LC intention is obvious. The Law 43B2(b) phrase "...from declarer's hand..." is so specific that it necessarily excludes "...from dummy's hand...". { R } =+= -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Nov 4 05:27:51 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:27:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Extract from Wikipedia article on "Framing (social sciences)": Tversky and Kahneman (1981) demonstrated systematic reversals of preference when the same problem is presented in different ways, for example in the Asian disease problem. Participants were asked to "imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows." The first group of participants were presented with a choice between two programs: Program A: "200 people will be saved" Program B: "there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved, and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved" 72 percent of participants preferred program A (the remainder, 28 percent, opting for program B). The second group of participants were presented with the choice between: Program C: "400 people will die" Program D: "there is a one-third probability that nobody will die, and a two-third probability that 600 people will die" In this decision frame, 78 percent preferred program D, with the remaining 22 percent opting for program C. Programs A and C are effectively identical, as are programs B and D. The change in the decision frame between the two groups of participants produced a preference reversal, with the first group preferring program A/C and the second group preferring B/D. Richard Hills: For many a year a prolific blmler (N*g*l G*thr**) has been bolstering his argument for deterrent / punishment changes to score adjustments in the next edition of the Lawbook with this framing: offending side = law breakers non-offending side = victims I will now put forward an equally irrelevant argument in favour of maintaining the current rectification / equity score adjustments in the next edition of the Lawbook with this equally invalid framing: offending side = careless and embarrassed Little Old Ladies non-offending side = last-drop-of-blood-from-a-stone sea-lawyers What's the last drop of problem? R.J.B. Hills, sea-lawyer -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Nov 4 06:49:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:49:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: Eric von Falkenhayn (1861-1922), the "Blood-Miller of Verdun": "The string in France has reached breaking point. A mass breakthrough - which in any case is beyond our means - is unnecessary. Within our reach there are objectives for the retention of which the French General Staff would be compelled to throw in every man they have. If they do so the forces of France will bleed to death." Nigel Guthrie, November 2009 imperfect memory: [snip] >>>Not that I expect sympathy :( >>> >>>Last time I complained, in similar circumstances, BLMLers ridiculed >>>me for following such a stupid rule :) Frances Hinden, November 2005 initial sympathy: >>Nigel, I agree that the regulation is unclear and should be >>clarified one way or the other. Clarified 2006 Orange Book Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, 25) -> Clause 10B4: "If it is said that the minimum permitted strength for an agreement about (say) strong opening bids is Rule of 25 +++or equivalent playing strength+++ then that means that it is illegal to have an agreement to open a Rule of 24 hand unless it +++clearly has equivalent playing strength to a typical+++ Rule of 25 hand." Frances Hinden, November 2005 lost sympathy: >>However, you totally lose any sympathy you may have started with by >>saying things such as >> >>"My team interpreted the Orange book restriction literally. As a >>result we lost matches." >>"Before before we get knocked out of too many events" >>"In the past, it has decided matches" >> >>I have lost a (very) large number of number of bridge matches, and >>in every single one of them this has been due, in varying >>proportions, to playing worse than the other team and bad luck. Nigel Guthrie, November 2005 cocooning: >I tell the truth as I see it. > >In any close match that we lost, there are boards which account for >more than the losing margin and on which we could have won the match >with a different decision. > >We call each such board "decisive" because it alone is sufficient to >decide the match. > >In some matches a decisive board resulted from our literal >interpretation of the Orange Book, which prevented us from opening a >rule of 17 or 18 hand that an opponent achieved a good result by >opening - for example reaching a good sacrifice. > >Of course, I know that Francis doesn't class following your >conception of the rules as "playing badly". (Although admittedly it >can have the same effect). I don't expect sympathy but I would be >grateful for further explanation. Grattan Endicott, November 2005 difficulty in belief: +=+ I find it difficult to believe that Nigel does not know how this regulation is applied. It seems to me that he chooses to cocoon himself in a regulatory world of his own making. I am uncertain whether he has tested the question by seeking a ruling in one or more cases where he doubts an opponent's action - and appealing it if he was dissatisfied with the answer. ~ G ~ +=+ Appendix, EBU Law and Ethics Committee minutes, 24th September 2009: Serious error unrelated to the Infraction [snip] "Serious Error" It should be rare to consider an action a "serious error". In general only the following types of action would be covered: * Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. Revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, +++not calling the TD after an irregularity+++). [snip] Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 4 10:00:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:00:01 -0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <0744CC59380E4118B7ABF62B0123AFDF@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ] > > "Serious Error" > > It should be rare to consider an action a "serious error". In general > only the following types of action would be covered: > > * Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. Revoking, creating > a major penalty card, leading out of turn, +++not calling the TD after > an irregularity+++). > > [snip] > +=+ [unsnip] Appendix A Serious error unrelated to the Infraction Introduction Under Law 12C1b, the non-offending side does not receive relief for any damage caused by "a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" or by its "wild or gambling" action. The latter is unchanged from the 1997 Laws, with some guidance provided in the White Book. Such an action must be considerably worse than bad bridge. Two points are worth noting: A wild or gambling action may be related to the infraction. A wild or gambling action is usually a deliberate action or positive decision by the non-offending side. A serious error is, by its nature, generally an action that the player regrets immediately i.e. a 'slip of the brain'. "Serious Error " It should be rare to consider an action a 'serious error'. In general only the following types of action would be covered: ? Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. Revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity). ? Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners' errors and should not be penalised for doing so. ? An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently. This also applies to potentially wild or gambling actions. For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a 'serious error' ? Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner's call. ? Any play that would be deemed 'normal', albeit careless or inferior, in ruling a contested claim. ? Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line. ? Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand. A failure to take advantage of privileges provided by the Laws, such as not asking the meaning of a clearly alerted call or waiving a penalty, would often be considered 'wild'. "Unrelated to the Infraction" It can be argued that if the final contract is only reached as the consequence of an infraction then any error in the play or defence must be related to it and cannot be penalised. This is considered too extreme a view and a serious error has to be more directly related to the infraction to be given redress. Note that a wild or gambling action does not need to be related to the infraction. In misinformation cases it is sometimes possible to work out from the sight of dummy or the first few tricks that there must have been either MI or a misbid during the auction. Some people might not correctly draw that conclusion, even if it would be considered obvious to more experienced players. This is related to the infraction and should not be penalised as a "serious error". General If the TD has been called to the table during or after the auction there may be discussion, possible disagreement or argument. In spite of the TD's best efforts, it is common for less experienced players now to feel upset, be distracted, or under pressure to play quickly. Errors in such circumstances should only rarely be considered 'serious'. If you are considering ruling an action to be any of wild, gambling or a serious error unrelated to the infraction it is worth asking the player concerned why they played or bid that way. They may have a valid bridge reason, for example they may be playing an unusual system or carding methods from which unexpected inferences can be drawn. - - - - - - - - - - - From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 4 09:40:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:40:50 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <62E2BCD954F243A0851AE5BEAA28851F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:27 AM Subject: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > For many a year a prolific blmler (N*g*l G*thr**) has been bolstering his argument for deterrent / punishment changes to score adjustments in the next edition of the Lawbook with this framing: > offending side = law breakers non-offending side = victims > I will now put forward an equally irrelevant argument in favour of maintaining the current rectification / equity score adjustments in the next edition of the Lawbook with this equally invalid framing: > offending side = careless and embarrassed Little Old Ladies non-offending side = last-drop-of-blood-from-a-stone sea-lawyers > What's the last drop of problem? > +=+ As it were polar and equatorial views of the subject. Somewhere between there are temperate climes, although how that will change when all the ice has melted remains to be seen. In the meantime the lawmakers have to pick their path. A theme that has bobbed up in our discussions from time to time is that of enabling players to "play bridge" as much as possible after an irregularity. Moderation of retribution flows quite often from this, together with a desire to make a distinction between rectification and procedural penalty. With that motivation a 2003 proposal of mine was to scrap specified lead penalties and allow freedom of choice subject to not using UI. Now superficially that would be a relaxation, but upon mature reflection I am not so sure - UI could exist which lies outside of merely knowing what suits have or have not been shown. "A policeman's lot is not a nappy one". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 4 10:27:10 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:27:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <002e01ca5cce$66e17370$34a45a50$@com> References: <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl><4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be> <020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl> <58CEDBB7-8F62-4D55-AB68-A38AC27978FA@starpower.net> <718B22424CB84426A33DF807EEA7EB43@Mildred> <002e01ca5cce$66e17370$34a45a50$@com> Message-ID: <4AF148EE.8030503@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [EL] > > Or suppose he tanks for three minutes, pulls on his hair for a bit, then > bids 2D. > > [GE] > > Two potential problems: either he thinks the hand may be too weak for the > multi, or he thinks the hand may be too good for the multi. But my surmise > is that it is the latter. With a weak hand he will make up his mind more > quickly. > > [DALB > > It's not so much that. But AJxxxx xx Qxx xx will more quickly be > recognised as a 2D opening than will AKx AQxx KJxx AQ. It takes longer to > count to 23 than it does to 7 - at least, for sufficiently small values of > 7. > AG : but AJxxxx - Q10xx - xx - x is much more probable than the above 23 HCP hand. And that's the hand I held last time I opejned a slow Multi (or its equivalent). From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 4 10:27:54 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:27:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF1491A.2000002@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Law 40B2(a), first sentence: > > "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, > disallow, or **allow conditionally**, any special partnership > understanding." > AG : could it be that you're mixing up having an agreement and using judgment ? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 4 10:45:46 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:45:46 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4AF1491A.2000002@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2897806C28B04AF8B31BDDA470F53FCE@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Law 40B2(a), first sentence: > > "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, > disallow, or **allow conditionally**, any special partnership > understanding." > AG : could it be that you're mixing up having an agreement and using judgment ? < +=+ Use your judgement a few times and you may be deemed to have an agreement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Nov 4 10:58:53 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:58:53 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: On 3 Nov 2009, at 21:21, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > We have lost a barrel load of points by masochistically complying > with our understanding of the regulation > and exploring game when it is likely if partner holds a strong > variant. I have a certain sympathy with some of your crusades Nigel, but I really find it hard to believe that this is true. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 4 11:15:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:15:29 -0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <0949EA61551B4C3794EE4977F599D978@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas > > On 3 Nov 2009, at 21:21, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >> We have lost a barrel load of points by masochistically complying >> with our understanding of the regulation >> and exploring game when it is likely if partner holds a strong >> variant. > > I have a certain sympathy with some of your crusades Nigel, but I > really find it hard to believe that this is true. < +=+ I do not know how this regulation is expressed or interpreted now. In the early days what we were seeking to militate against was a practice of all too freely passing out weak twos when, top of the range, they could well combine with the passing hand to make game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk Wed Nov 4 11:38:54 2009 From: clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk (Alan Hill) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:38:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <0949EA61551B4C3794EE4977F599D978@Mildred> Message-ID: <895082.82255.qm@web27903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Repetition is the only form of permanence > that nature can achieve." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???~ George Santayana > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Rainsford" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 9:58 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas > > > > > > On 3 Nov 2009, at 21:21, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > > > >> We have lost a barrel load of points by > masochistically complying > >> with our understanding of the regulation > >> and exploring game when it is likely if partner > holds a strong > >> variant. > > > > I have a certain sympathy with some of your crusades > Nigel, but I > > really find it hard to believe that this is true. > < > +=+ I do not know how this regulation is expressed or > interpreted > now.? In the early days what we were seeking to > militate against > was a practice of all too freely passing out weak twos > when, top of > the range, they could well combine with the passing hand to > make > game.? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???~ Grattan ~? +=+ > Is this not the nub of the problem? Most multi bids are weak twos. Some players rarely open top of their range but frequently open light. 6 - 10 with 6 card suit actually being 5 -8 5/6 card suit. Alan H From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 4 12:11:01 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:11:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <4AF148EE.8030503@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AF148EE.8030503@ulb.ac.be> <4AF02DB4.50109@virginmedia.com> <01f901ca5c8c$a1111ab0$e3335010$@nl><4AF03805.5050702@ulb.ac.be> <020e01ca5c8f$f94fb670$ebef2350$@nl> <58CEDBB7-8F62-4D55-AB68-A38AC27978FA@starpower.net> <718B22424CB84426A33DF807EEA7EB43@Mildred> <002e01ca5cce$66e17370$34a45a50$@com> Message-ID: <8981733.1257333061531.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > David Burn a ?crit : > > [EL] > > > > Or suppose he tanks for three minutes, pulls on his hair for a bit, then > > bids 2D. > > > > [GE] > > > > Two potential problems: either he thinks the hand may be too weak for the > > multi, or he thinks the hand may be too good for the multi. But my > surmise > > is that it is the latter. With a weak hand he will make up his mind more > > quickly. > > > > [DALB > > > > It's not so much that. But AJxxxx xx Qxx xx will more quickly be > > recognised as a 2D opening than will AKx AQxx KJxx AQ. It takes longer > to > > count to 23 than it does to 7 - at least, for sufficiently small values > of > > 7. > > > AG : but AJxxxx - Q10xx - xx - x is much more probable than the above > 23 HCP hand. And that's the hand I held last time I opejned a slow Multi > (or its equivalent). Works differently for me. For your example hand, I have a rule: I never open a weak two or a multi with a side four card major. Does not take any time to figure anything out there, and as I make such non-decisions frequently, I do not have to spend any time to remember those rules. I just apply my existing rules. For a 20-22 HCP NT, *because* it is less frequent, I do not have strict rules on what to do with a small singleton, what to do with 4441 and a singleton A or K, what to do with 2425 etc. I have to make the decision when I actually pick up such a hand, and that takes some time. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From adam at tameware.com Wed Nov 4 12:39:15 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Washington non-NABC+ Case 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694eadd40911040339x32ab4b9ci86ef9ab00e762e9f@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Grabiner < grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > Case: East led the SJ, North asked about the lead, and West explained as > "attitude." What was important to North about the lead was whether it > denied > the SK; he would have chosen a different line of play if he had known that > West > had the SK. > > Adam Widalvsky's comment: I agree that the appeal had no merit. I would > have > adjusted the NS score as well. The explanation was inadequate, and as far > as I > can tell from the write-up the convention card was not filled in correctly. > > The relevant part of the card was filled in correctly. "Coded 9/10s" may > have > been written in the carding section, but there is no obligation to write > that at > all if the leads are properly circled. While KJTx is not one of the > holdings on > the card, AJT9 is and E/W had the T circled. In most leading systems, the > same > card is led from KJTx and AJTx, so I would expect the J to deny the K. (A > more > common problem is for players to write "Coded 9/10s" under the leads but > not to > circle anything; if E/W had done that, I would give them a PP.) > > Ultimately, I agree with the split ruling. North knew that he had > incomplete > information, as "attitude" is not relevant to the jack, and he should have > either asked for a clarification or checked the card properly. If he found > that > KJTx was not on the card, he would then know that he needed to ask for > clarification. > > Meanwhile, West didn't correct the MI when she realized that she had given > MI; > she was not looking at partner's lead when she said "attitude", but once > she > noticed the jack, she should have known that her explanation was > incomplete. > > The one case for ruling an adjustment for North is that the follow-up > question > would give AI that the opponents were not entitled to. I don't think this > is > the case; once North asks about the jack lead, he must have an interest in > the > higher honors. (And, for that matter, I believe it is proper to determine > the > defensive agreements at trick one even if you know what the lead means on > this > hand; you may want to falsecard later on.) > You're right! I looked at a convention card and found KJTx there, but it was not a standard ACBL card. On the current ACBL card it's not listed. I think it ought to be, but that's not relevant to this case. I've updated my comments as follows: ======== I agree that the appeal had no merit. I might have adjusted the NS score as well. Declarer shouldn't have to dig for the information he's entitled to. The explanation was inadequate, and given the explanation he received it was reasonable for North to assume that "Attitude" was the defender's only non-standard lead agreement. He did well just to look at their CC. West could have and should have corrected her explanation once she saw her partner's lead. It's unfortunate that KJTx is not listed on the ACBL convention card. ======== -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091104/a4665bb5/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Nov 4 12:46:49 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:46:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <895082.82255.qm@web27903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <895082.82255.qm@web27903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <14885157-45D2-4FCB-B16B-E2207295A19F@btinternet.com> On 4 Nov 2009, at 10:38, Alan Hill wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> +=+ I do not know how this regulation is expressed or >> interpreted >> now. In the early days what we were seeking to >> militate against >> was a practice of all too freely passing out weak twos >> when, top of >> the range, they could well combine with the passing hand to >> make >> game. >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > Is this not the nub of the problem? > Most multi bids are weak twos. > Some players rarely open top of their range but frequently open > light. 6 - 10 with 6 card suit actually being 5 -8 5/6 card suit. In the discussion Nigel instituted in IBLF on the same topic, it has been suggested that the origin of the regulation was an attempt to prevent players from effectively playing a weak-only Multi (which they were not then allowed to do) by adding on a very unlikely strong option and then ignoring it in practice. Whether or not that is the case, those of us who have arrived since then (during which time the ban on weak-only Multis has partly been lifted) have only the words to interpret. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091104/43f9d8c9/attachment.html From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Nov 4 13:22:14 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:22:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF171F6.7050200@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] Appendix, EBU Law and Ethics Committee minutes, 24th September 2009: "Serious Error" It should be rare to consider an action a "serious error". In general only the following types of action would be covered: * Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. Revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, +++not calling the TD after an irregularity+++). [Nigel] I wrote that my opponent passed opposite his partner's first-in-hand multi, with a slam probable opposite the strong option. Subsequently, we were careful not to do anything "wild or gambling" :) nor did we commit an egregious error :). The table result was 2D+2 -- a bottom for us. Richard seems to think that I should have called the director. I admit I didn't draw attention to the (putative) infraction :( but my partner is made of sterner stuff :) We normally play under SBU regulations but this tournament was in England, so he checked the latest edition of the EBU Orange book. Then he asked for a ruling. The director consulted the CTD and other colleagues. They ruled "result stands" for both sides. Directors seem to rate local regulations as much a pain in the arse as players do :( From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 4 13:42:51 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:42:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2897806C28B04AF8B31BDDA470F53FCE@Mildred> References: <4AF1491A.2000002@ulb.ac.be> <2897806C28B04AF8B31BDDA470F53FCE@Mildred> Message-ID: <4AF176CB.7050809@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ Use your judgement a few times and you may be deemed to > have an agreement. Do you mean it's an agreement that KQJx and xx are better than Kxxx and QJ ? From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Nov 4 14:06:55 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:06:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF17C6F.4090501@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard hills quotes Wikipedia "Framing (social sciences)"] Tversky and Kahneman (1981) demonstrated systematic reversals of preference when the same problem is presented in different ways, for example in the Asian disease problem. Participants were asked to "imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows." The first group of participants were presented with a choice between two programs: Program A: "200 people will be saved" Program B: "there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved, and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved" 72 percent of participants preferred program A (the remainder, 28 percent, opting for program B). The second group of participants were presented with the choice between: Program C: "400 people will die" Program D: "there is a one-third probability that nobody will die, and a two-third probability that 600 people will die" In this decision frame, 78 percent preferred program D, with the remaining 22 percent opting for program C. Programs A and C are effectively identical, as are programs B and D. The change in the decision frame between the two groups of participants produced a preference reversal, with the first group preferring program A/C and the second group preferring B/D. [R.J.B. Hills, sea-lawyer] For many a year a prolific blmler (N*g*l G*thr**) has been bolstering his argument for deterrent / punishment changes to score adjustments in the next edition of the Lawbook with this framing: offending side = law breakers non-offending side = victims I will now put forward an equally irrelevant argument in favour of maintaining the current rectification / equity score adjustments in the next edition of the Lawbook with this equally invalid framing: offending side = careless and embarrassed Little Old Ladies non-offending side = last-drop-of-blood-from-a-stone sea-lawyers What's the last drop of problem? [Nigel] Who is R*I*C*H*A*R*D H*I*L*L*S emulating? - H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N or - E*D*G*A*R ? IMO: - It is sensible for law-makers to treat those who break the law as "law-breakers"; and those whom they damage by their infractions, as "victims". - However Richard regards law-breakers, the *law-book* itself should *deter* rather than encourage them. - Judging from private correspondence, a tiny but growing number of BLMLers share this view. - We the best hope for the future of Bridge. From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 4 15:03:42 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:03:42 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <62E2BCD954F243A0851AE5BEAA28851F@Mildred> References: <62E2BCD954F243A0851AE5BEAA28851F@Mildred> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 02:40 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Defer not till to-morrow to be wise, > To-morrow's sun to thee may never rise." > [William Congreve] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:27 AM > Subject: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> > > For many a year a prolific blmler (N*g*l G*thr**) has been > bolstering his argument for deterrent / punishment changes to score > adjustments in the next edition of the Lawbook with this framing: >> > offending side = law breakers > non-offending side = victims >> > I will now put forward an equally irrelevant argument in favour of > maintaining the current rectification / equity score adjustments in > the next edition of the Lawbook with this equally invalid framing: >> > offending side = careless and embarrassed Little Old Ladies > non-offending side = last-drop-of-blood-from-a-stone sea-lawyers >> > What's the last drop of problem? >> > +=+ As it were polar and equatorial views of the subject. > Somewhere between there are temperate climes, although > how that will change when all the ice has melted remains > to be seen. > In the meantime the lawmakers have to pick their path. > A theme that has bobbed up in our discussions from time > to time is that of enabling players to "play bridge" as much > as possible after an irregularity. Moderation of retribution > flows quite often from this, together with a desire to make > a distinction between rectification and procedural penalty. > With that motivation a 2003 proposal of mine was to > scrap specified lead penalties and allow freedom of choice > subject to not using UI. Now superficially that would be a > relaxation, but upon mature reflection I am not so sure - > UI could exist which lies outside of merely knowing what > suits have or have not been shown. > "A policeman's lot is not a nappy one". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Bridge is a game about how Larry, Moe, Curly, and Sally solve a hand without UI. TFLB2007 specifies UI remedies that impose upon their hapless victim the requirement to fortune tell how Machiavelli [instead of Moe] might solve the hand. In fact, however, Moe is very unlikely to fortune tell successfully. As such, by requiring the player to substitute Machiavelli for himself, it is at that point where bridge is no longer being played. Players are ill suited for such thought games. The principle of appearances suggests that it does not matter whether the substitution is made by the player himself or subsequent to play by an adjudicator, the effect being the same means that it is Machiavelli that is playing, not Moe. So, if indeed the wise thing to do is to try to provide for 'playing bridge' after a game altering infraction, then the best approximation is to construct remedies that sagaciously counter balance the effect of the infraction so as to avoid the need for the players to be their own judge and executioner. regards roger pewick From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 4 16:19:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:19:22 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <62E2BCD954F243A0851AE5BEAA28851F@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Grattan" ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:27 AM Subject: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> the effect being the same means that it is Machiavelli that is playing, not Moe. > +=+ Not so. Machiavelli provides the court within which Mos is to pl;ay. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 4 22:29:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:29:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF17C6F.4090501@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Who is R*I*C*H*A*R*D H*I*L*L*S emulating? >- H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N or >- E*D*G*A*R ? Leo Rosten (1908-1997), author of the H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N stories: "Extremists think 'communication' means agreeing with them." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, What's green, hangs on a wall, and whistles? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Nov 5 01:58:49 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:58:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> [Nige1] We have lost a barrel load of points by masochistically complying with our understanding of the regulation and exploring game when it is likely if partner holds a strong variant. [Gordon Rainsford] I have a certain sympathy with some of your crusades Nigel, but I really find it hard to believe that this is true. [Nige2] I have played decades of Bridge under EBU regulatios. Often we played multi, which we usually defined as a weak two (5+ cards) or 22-23 flat. We opened 2D at least once in most sessions. We were tempted to pass 2D, quite often, especially when non-vulnerable. Nevertheless, I am forced to concede that Gordon makes an excellent point, as usual. Because, of course, *we complied with the Orange Book* So, in fact, *we didn't pass*. Hence all the gains we might have made by passing are hypothetical. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 5 02:09:26 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:09:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AE1BADD.3040108@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE1BADD.3040108@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AF225C6.8050103@nhcc.net> > From: Herman De Wael > There seems to be no reason why anyone would > be foolish enough to list both the name and the description of the > convention on the same SC. I agree with that, but just a couple of weeks ago I did in fact spot a SC with "Capelletti" and the meanings written on it! If a player is lucky enough to have opponents who do this, I can't see any way of stopping him from using the information. Nor would I think it desirable to do so. > And I urge the WBF, once again, to make those regulations that are quite > stable (such as the bidding box regulations - which will not change in > the foreseeable future) to be part of the laws. I agree that the bidding box regulations are unlikely to change, but unfortunately there are at least two versions in effect in different jurisdictions. While I know which ones I prefer, I expect the political problems of adopting one over the other will be insurmountable. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 5 02:19:26 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:19:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <4AE1EEAE.3060405@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE1EEAE.3060405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AF2281E.3060002@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > Two tables. Identical infractions: 1C-1S-1D. Director! > Investigates but does not reveal findings. Identical rulings: IBer > may correct to 2D without penalty per L27B1(b). Identical meaning of > corrected auctions: 2D is natural, showing values and diamonds. NOS > would like to know whether IBer thought he was bidding to 1C-P- or P- > P-. Are they entitled? I don't see why. In my view, they *should* be entitled to know what 1D would mean as an opening bid, as an overcall, and in 1C-P-1D, but the WBFLC appears to take a different view. However, I don't see any entitlement anywhere to know what the player was actually thinking. > Totally irrelevant to either the infraction or the ruling, OS at > table 1 happens to play that on 1C-P-, 1D shows diamonds but denies a > 4-card major, while the OS at table 2 plays that it shows hearts. At > table 2, the ruling provides the NOS with the information that the > IBer thought the auction had gone P-P rather than 1C-P. Shouldn't > the NOS at table 1 be permitted the same information? I don't see why the table 1 NOS should have that information. And in any case, there are other possibilities. > What did the NOS at table 2 do to deserve the resulting advantage? It's a question of what the table 2 OS did to deserve the disadvantage. As Kaplan remarked (in a not entirely similar case), it's their penalty for playing a revealing bidding system. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 5 02:21:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:21:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0949EA61551B4C3794EE4977F599D978@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: +=+ I do not know how this regulation is expressed or interpreted now. In the early days what we were seeking to militate against was a practice of all too freely passing out weak twos when, top of the range, they could well combine with the passing hand to make game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: So rather than do the heavy lifting of demonstrating that _a particular_ partnership had a notional 6 hcp to 10 hcp range for their weak twos, but an actual unrevealed understanding of a 6 hcp to 8 hcp range for their weak twos, the EBU took the lazy Walter the Walrus approach of prohibiting _all_ partnerships from exercising their hand evaluation skills about borderline games. A similar lazy Walter the Walrus approach was taken by the WBF Laws Committee nine years ago. WBF Laws Committee minutes 30th August 2000, item 8: Mr. Martel spoke as to the difference in an all-expert game and any other in diagnosis of psychic action. The Committee did not support any view that in the sequence P - P - 1H - 1NT ? the Dealer, having eleven HCP, could now do other than double. The Committee then commented upon the question of development of partnership understandings about psychic action. The view taken is that a partnership understanding exists when the frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the partner of a psycher to take his awareness of psychic possibilities into account, whether he does so or not. When a partnership understanding as to psychic action exists it is subject to regulation under the laws as being part of the methods of the partnership. Richard Hills: Fortunately the first paragraph of this minute has now been invalidated by the 2007 Law 40A3. Although, to be fair to the WBF LC, the concepts (but not the loose language conflating psyches with pseudo-psyches) in the second and third paragraphs are clearly the seeds of the 2007 Law 40C. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 5 04:16:19 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:16:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Framing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <62E2BCD954F243A0851AE5BEAA28851F@Mildred> Message-ID: "A policeman's lot is not a nappy one". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ American translation: "A cop's caboodle is not a diaper one." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 5 05:31:05 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:31:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <4AF04FAC.2020901@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AF04FAC.2020901@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AF25509.9050908@nhcc.net> > From: Nigel Guthrie > [EBU Orange Book 6G (v) Multi 2D] > Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand > justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener?s Multi 2D. We could really use David Stevenson's input here, but as I understand it (and as Gordon mentioned), the regulation was put in place for Level 3 to prevent pairs getting around the regulation that for multi to be legal, the strong option must be "of reasonable frequency." That's not required at Level 4 and higher. The upshot would be that passing is not illegal _per se_, but unless a special reason to pass exists, there may be suspicion that the convention being played is illegal. However, if there is precedent that "22-24 flat" is "of reasonable frequency," and the methods in use provide no other way to show such a hand, then I don't see any problem in passing. Whether it's right to pass on the given hand is a different matter. It certainly could lead to a big swing in either direction. > From: Eric Landau > Suppose partner looks at his cards and bids 2D > immediately. Then he has a classic weak two or at least an obvious one in the style being played. > Or suppose he tanks for three minutes, pulls on his > hair for a bit, then bids 2D. Most likely a flawed weak two but conceivably a flawed strong-balanced. Normal strong balanced will take longer than a weak two but not "minutes;" 3-5 seconds is probably about normal. In practice, regular partnerships are likely to have their tempo more finely calibrated than this unless they are careful to avoid it. > Which one suggests passing more than the other does? On Nigel's hand, pass the normal weak two; bid opposite anything else. Of course passing could be wrong if opener unexpectedly has spades, but then the opponents are likely to rescue, given their heart length. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 5 05:38:59 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:38:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 In-Reply-To: <4AEB04C5.6080304@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AEB04C5.6080304@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AF256E3.2050101@nhcc.net> > From: Grattan > +=+ I think the use of 'may' in Law 92A answers this. Thanks, Grattan. So combining with the Preface, failure to appeal is in no way wrong. I'm relieved. By the way, I think Richard conflated my two stories. The non-ruling was by the well-known National TD at the Boston NABC a year ago when I called him for my own potential "use of UI." In the recent case of an opponent's alleged "use of UI" -- the one I was wondering whether we should have appealed -- the TD ruled "no adjustment" and claimed to have consulted two players. His ruling was unclear, but I _think_ he decided "no LA." Of course I have no idea whom he consulted or what he asked them, but from my point of view, the _process_ was fine except for the basis of the ruling not being thoroughly explained. It's the bridge judgment I question, but pursuing an appeal wasn't worth being late for dinner. From jkljkl at gmx.de Thu Nov 5 06:15:29 2009 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (Stefan Filonardi) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:15:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <4AF25509.9050908@nhcc.net> References: <4AF04FAC.2020901@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AF25509.9050908@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4AF25F71.50204@gmx.de> Hello, Steve Willner schrieb: >> From: Nigel Guthrie [EBU >> Orange Book 6G (v) Multi 2D] Responder is expected to explore >> game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the >> stronger options of opener's Multi 2D. > > We could really use David Stevenson's input here, you will find some in this thread http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=35040 just look for the postings of bluejak ciao stefan From blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 5 08:20:31 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:20:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> Message-ID: <29020904.1257405631894.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > We have lost a barrel load of points by masochistically complying > with our understanding of the regulation and exploring game when it is > likely if partner holds a strong variant. > > [Gordon Rainsford] > I have a certain sympathy with some of your crusades Nigel, but I > really find it hard to believe that this is true. > > [Nige2] > I have played decades of Bridge under EBU regulatios. Often we played > multi, which we usually defined as a weak two (5+ cards) or 22-23 flat. > We opened 2D at least once in most sessions. We were tempted to pass 2D, > quite often, especially when non-vulnerable. > > Nevertheless, I am forced to concede that Gordon makes an excellent > point, as usual. Because, of course, *we complied with the Orange Book* > So, in fact, *we didn't pass*. Hence all the gains we might have made by > passing are hypothetical. I think Gordon is mystified by you not passing the multi with a suitable hand when 11 G 6 (vi) says "It is only permitted to pass a Multi 2D if responder has good reason to believe that 2D is the partnership's best contract" Your multi is weak two + 22-24 HCP? Then you are now allowed to pass 2D with a 6HCP 4333 hand. You are allowed to pass 2D with long diamonds. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 5 09:19:00 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:19:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AF225C6.8050103@nhcc.net> References: <4AE1BADD.3040108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AF225C6.8050103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4AF28A74.7080404@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > > I agree that the bidding box regulations are unlikely to change, but > unfortunately there are at least two versions in effect in different > jurisdictions. While I know which ones I prefer, I expect the political > problems of adopting one over the other will be insurmountable. > _______________________________________________ Do you really think so? Did either of those jurisdictions tell you that they absolutely don't want the other bidding box regulation? Are they both so stupid as to not agree that a single regulation for the whole world would be preferable? I agree that it is sometimes difficult to change regulations, but surely this is an area where the actual regulation should not depend on national preferences. As opposed to the alert regulations, I should say - where local habits concerning system define what is "normal" and what should be alerted. Herman. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Nov 5 10:01:41 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:01:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <3CF67DFA-6CD3-4781-8006-05DB57983516@btinternet.com> On 5 Nov 2009, at 00:58, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I have played decades of Bridge under EBU regulatios. Often we played > multi, which we usually defined as a weak two (5+ cards) or 22-23 > flat. > We opened 2D at least once in most sessions. We were tempted to > pass 2D, > quite often, especially when non-vulnerable. And the nett effect of succumbing to this temptation would have been to win "a barrel load of points"? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091105/55c4e6ec/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 5 12:50:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:50:21 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes References: <4AE1BADD.3040108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AF225C6.8050103@nhcc.net> <4AF28A74.7080404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <40DD208D66E04F149E65BA04BD20ACB7@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes > Steve Willner wrote: >> >> I agree that the bidding box regulations are unlikely to change, but >> unfortunately there are at least two versions in effect in different >> jurisdictions. While I know which ones I prefer, I expect the political >> problems of adopting one over the other will be insurmountable. >> _______________________________________________ > > Do you really think so? Did either of those jurisdictions tell you that > they absolutely don't want the other bidding box regulation? > Are they both so stupid as to not agree that a single regulation for the > whole world would be preferable? > > I agree that it is sometimes difficult to change regulations, but surely > this is an area where the actual regulation should not depend on > national preferences. > As opposed to the alert regulations, I should say - where local habits > concerning system define what is "normal" and what should be alerted. > > Herman. > +=+ For the record the latest WBF bidding box regulations are in the General CoCs for Sao Paulo in the Document store on Anna's ecatsbridge website. The regulation without screens is in section 24 and modification with screens in section 26.1. And yes, Herman, I recognize this is your view (and that of some others) - you have said it a number of times. However, the obstacle to its accomplishment does not lie alone in the differences between the wishes of various jurisdictions. A stronger resistance exists in the opinion of some (perhaps the majority) in the WBFLC that divides subjects between those appropriate for the law to deal with and those which are appropriately put to regulation. The underlying basis for the distinction lies in what is seen to constitute the core game and what are the processes and procedures by which play of the game is facilitated (or something like that). Since apparently the NBOs are on the whole content with this, I sense no urge to change it. I continue to advocate a general safety-net provision in regulatory codes providing recourse to WBF regulations where it is found that a question is not answered within a code. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. I really do think you should curb allegations that anyone who does not hold to your opinions is stupid. References to stupidity tend to inhibit communication from others who might have useful things to say. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Nov 5 13:09:44 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:09:44 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <3CF67DFA-6CD3-4781-8006-05DB57983516@btinternet.com> References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <3CF67DFA-6CD3-4781-8006-05DB57983516@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4AF2C088.9060301@yahoo.co.uk> [Nige1] I have played decades of Bridge under EBU regulatios. Often we played multi, which we usually defined as a weak two (5+ cards) or 22-23 flat. We opened 2D at least once in most sessions. We were tempted to pass 2D, quite often, especially when non-vulnerable. [Gordon Rainsford] And the nett effect of succumbing to this temptation would have been to win "a barrel load of points"? [Nige2] Gordon you've done a Richard, snipping the paragraph that admitted that I can't prove my estimate. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Nov 5 14:17:32 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:17:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <4AF25509.9050908@nhcc.net> References: <4AF04FAC.2020901@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AF25509.9050908@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4AF2D06C.2000000@yahoo.co.uk> [EBU Orange Book 6G (v) Multi 2D] Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener?s Multi 2D. [Steve Willner] We could really use David Stevenson's input here, but as I understand it (and as Gordon mentioned), the regulation was put in place for Level 3 to prevent pairs getting around the regulation that for multi to be legal, the strong option must be "of reasonable frequency." That's not required at Level 4 and higher. The upshot would be that passing is not illegal _per se_, but unless a special reason to pass exists, there may be suspicion that the convention being played is illegal. However, if there is precedent that "22-24 flat" is "of reasonable frequency," and the methods in use provide no other way to show such a hand, then I don't see any problem in passing. Whether it's right to pass on the given hand is a different matter. It certainly could lead to a big swing in either direction. [Nigel] Harald Skj?ran interprets this regulation the same way as my partnerships do. I concede however, that Steve Willner's interpretation is also possible. Bridge has too many woolly rules (regulations and laws). IMO: - It is a cousel of despair to suggest that we go back to consult the Oracle responsible for the original. What matters for a rule is the *meaning of the words*, rather than the *intentions of the writer*. An obscure minute or a Delphic pronouncement in a specialist forum will still leave players (and most directors) in the dark. - Better would be for law-committees to publish draft editions of all the complex and sophisticated rules on the web, inviting queries and criticism. Then publish a new edition of the rule-book with the text corrected in place. - Even better would be to simplify and objectify rules, where possible. - Best would be also to cut out rules that cause confusion but add no value to the game. This would eliminate some laws and almost all regulations. From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Thu Nov 5 15:33:57 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Michael Amos) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:33:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: <4AF25509.9050908@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <922805.76948.qm@web86305.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 5/11/09, Steve Willner wrote: From: Steve Willner Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Date: Thursday, 5 November, 2009, 4:31 AM > From: Nigel Guthrie > [EBU Orange Book 6G (v) Multi 2D] > Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand > justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener?s Multi 2D. We could really use David Stevenson's input here, but as I understand it (and as Gordon mentioned), the regulation was put in place for Level 3 to prevent pairs getting around the regulation that for multi to be legal, the strong option must be "of reasonable frequency."? That's not required at Level 4 and higher.? The upshot would be that passing is not illegal _per se_, but unless a special reason to pass exists, there may be suspicion that the convention being played is illegal.? However, if there is precedent that "22-24 flat" is "of reasonable frequency," and the methods in use provide no other way to show such a hand, then I don't see any problem in passing. Whether it's right to pass on the given hand is a different matter.? It certainly could lead to a big swing in either direction. > From: Eric Landau >? Suppose partner looks at his cards and bids 2D > immediately. Then he has a classic weak two or at least an obvious one in the style being played. > Or suppose he tanks for three minutes, pulls on his > hair for a bit, then bids 2D. Most likely a flawed weak two but conceivably a flawed strong-balanced. Normal strong balanced will take longer than a weak two but not "minutes;" 3-5 seconds is probably about normal. In practice, regular partnerships are likely to have their tempo more finely calibrated than this unless they are careful to avoid it. >? Which one suggests passing more than the other does? On Nigel's hand, pass the normal weak two; bid opposite anything else. Of course passing could be wrong if opener unexpectedly has spades, but then the opponents are likely to rescue, given their heart length. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml The EBU regulation about the frequency of the strong option has a long history.? As I recall David Stevenson once told me that it went back to before his time on Laws & Ethics in England. Max and I had a conversation two or three years ago after I had dealt with a case where I had decided that the frequency of the hand type was too low and therefore had ruled that the convention was an illegal one (I cannot remember exactly what the pair had agreed but it was 4441 shape and the number 28 was somehow involved)? - Max's view was that the intention was to not allow something that basically just wouldn't ever happen - not to ban something that might only only once a year or so playing a reasonable number of hands.? My ruling was not appealed. Mike Amos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091105/55c3f5f3/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 5 16:02:54 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:02:54 -0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com><4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <3CF67DFA-6CD3-4781-8006-05DB57983516@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott <4AF25509.9050908@nhcc.net> <4AF2D06C.2000000@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi [EBU Orange Book 6G (v) Multi 2D] Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener?s Multi 2D. [Steve Willner] We could really use David Stevenson's input here, but as I understand it (and as Gordon mentioned), the regulation was put in place for Level 3 to prevent pairs getting around the regulation that for multi to be legal, the strong option must be "of reasonable frequency." That's not required at Level 4 and higher. The upshot would be that passing is not illegal _per se_, but unless a special reason to pass exists, there may be suspicion that the convention being played is illegal. However, if there is precedent that "22-24 flat" is "of reasonable frequency," and the methods in use provide no other way to show such a hand, then I don't see any problem in passing. Whether it's right to pass on the given hand is a different matter. It certainly could lead to a big swing in either direction. [Nigel] Harald Skj?ran interprets this regulation the same way as my partnerships do. I concede however, that Steve Willner's interpretation is also possible. Bridge has too many woolly rules (regulations and laws). IMO: - It is a counsel of despair to suggest that we go back to consult the Oracle responsible for the original. What matters for a rule is the *meaning of the words*, rather than the *intentions of the writer*. An obscure minute or a Delphic pronouncement in a specialist forum will still leave players (and most directors) in the dark. - Better would be for law-committees to publish draft editions of all the complex and sophisticated rules on the web, inviting queries and criticism. Then publish a new edition of the rule-book with the text corrected in place. - Even better would be to simplify and objectify rules, where possible. - Best would be also to cut out rules that cause confusion but add no value to the game. This would eliminate some laws and almost all regulations. +=+ First let me say that in my Orange Book (2006, last updated 2008) the wording quoted is found at 11G6(v). There is also a level 4 general regulation [11H8 - note (i)] saying "Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger types of his partner's opening bid". When I was chairman of the EBU L&E C we had concerns about players passing natural Weak Two openers with hands having game potential opposite near top of the range twos. I do not recall that we extended this to the Multi at that time. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 18:26:10 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:26:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <3CF67DFA-6CD3-4781-8006-05DB57983516@btinternet.com> Message-ID: 2009/11/5 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Repetition is the only form of permanence > that nature can achieve." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ George Santayana > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gordon Rainsford > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:01 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas > << > On 5 Nov 2009, at 00:58, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > I have played decades of Bridge under EBU regulatios. Often > we played multi, which we usually defined as a weak two (5+ cards) > or 22-23 flat. We opened 2D at least once in most sessions. We > were tempted to pass 2D, quite often, especially when non-vulnerable. > << > And the nett effect of succumbing to this temptation would have been > to win "a barrel load of points"? > < > +=+ I find it interesting to ask the question "What is Multi?". Is it for > example as described by the WBF: > ? ? ? ?"A two level opening bid in a minor showing a > ? ? ? ? weak two in Hearts or Spades, whether with > ? ? ? ? or without the option of strong hand types." ? ? ? > > Or is it as the EBU describes it: > ? ? ? ? "The term 'Multi' without qualification means a traditional Multi, > i.e. it is a 2D opening that shows one of these three possibilities: > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(a) a weak hand with Hearts; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(b) a weak hand with Spades > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(c) a strong hand of one or more types. > A 2D opening that does not follow this rule shoulfd not be described > as a Multi unless an appropriate qualification is included." > > Or is it ....... well, insert your own description....... > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ In Norway, a 2D opening showing a weak hand in either major with or without strong options is called a 'Multi', and isn't regarded as a BSC. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Nov 5 20:11:04 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:11:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <3CF67DFA-6CD3-4781-8006-05DB57983516@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I find it interesting to ask the question "What is Multi?". Is it for example as described by the WBF: "A two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in Hearts or Spades, whether with or without the option of strong hand types." ? Or is it as the EBU describes it: "The term 'Multi' without qualification means a traditional Multi, i.e. it is a 2D opening that shows one of these three possibilities: (a) a weak hand with Hearts; (b) a weak hand with Spades (c) a strong hand of one or more types. A 2D opening that does not follow this rule should not be described as a Multi unless an appropriate qualification is included." Or is it ....... well, insert your own description....... [Nige1] As stated, the case under discussion was in an EBU event. Hence, my guess is that EBU Orange Book regulations were in force and the "multi" definition was the EBU Orange book definition, as quoted by Grattan. Is the lesson, once again, that players are expected to take such regulations with a pinch of salt? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 5 23:02:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:02:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF2C088.9060301@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Philippe P?tain (1856-1951), as French commander at Verdun: "On les aura!" Robert Nivelle (1856-1924), as P?tain's successor at Verdun: "Ils ne passeront pas!" Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Gordon you've done a Richard, [snip] ping the paragraph that admitted >that I can't prove my estimate. Richard Hills: Another of my bad habits is hijacking a thread. Grattan Endicott, 2nd December 2005: >>>+=+ Oh, I don't know, Kojak. Nigel strikes me as an honest >>>journeyman worker on blml, simply using his right to freedom of >>>speech. He does not know what goes on in the drafting subcommittee >>>and is unwise to jump to conclusions with scant knowledge, but we >>>should not blind ourselves to the possibility that anyone who >>>writes here may say something that will stop us falling into a >>>hole, and my belief in life is that I should try to display the >>>humility that is willing to hear and sometimes learn - even in my >>>eighty-second year when it might be thought that I had 'been there, >>>done that'. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ William ("Kojak") Schoder, 3rd December 2005: >>Perhaps you are right, Grattan. I shall search through Mr. >>Guthrie's posting for the kernels of his intended constructive >>criticism and help to those of us who are struggling with a hard >>task. I should, and always will, respect his right to freedom of >>speech, and only relegate to the trash heap those thoughts that add >>diddely-squat (old Southern American jargon which will not appear in >>the new Laws), can only be meant as other than constructive, and >>suffer (.....)(you pick the word). I will diligently do so. After >>all, in my seventy-third year I'm really just a puppy when it comes >>to this kind of work, having also 'been there, done that' many times >>over. >> >>I guess. >> >>Kojak Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, in my fifty-first year, yet to be there nor do that -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Nov 5 23:16:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:16:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF256E3.2050101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: 2007 Introduction (part of the 2007 Laws): "Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director." Steve Willner asserted: >...from my point of view, the _process_ was fine except for the >basis of the ruling not being thoroughly explained... Not in the 2007 Introduction nor in any 2007 Law: "The Director should be ready to explain gracefully the basis of her rectification or adjusted score." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 6 00:55:31 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:55:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >We have lost a barrel load of points by masochistically complying >with our understanding of the [unfair context-removing snip] >multi, which we usually defined as a weak two (5+ cards) or 22-23 >flat. We opened 2D at least once in most sessions. [unfair context-removing snip] >So, in fact, *we didn't pass*. Hence all the gains we might have >made by passing are hypothetical. Richard Hills: Yes, I agree that Nigel and his partner would have gained a barrel load of points if they had more frequently passed as dealer, and less frequently opened a 2D multi. Grattan Endicott, May 2004: >>>+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I >>>recall, a regulation in any competition that actually says >>>"It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". David Stevenson, May 2004: >>Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my >>partners and team-mates. Richard Hills: The problem with the weak option of a multi showing 5 or 6 cards in a major, instead of guaranteeing exactly 6 cards, is that partner is less able to make pass-or-correct preemptive jumps, and also less able to judge defend-or-save. Another problem with opening a 5-card major at the two level is the strong chance of preempting pard -- you fail in 2H in your 5-1 fit, but were cold for +120 in 1NT. Also, if a multi 2D has these three options: (a) 6 hearts, 5-9 hcp (b) 6 spades, 5-9 hcp (c) balanced, 20-21 hcp then that version of a multi 2D is much more likely to deter the opponents from entering the auction than the Guthrie version, due to the percentage chance of the strong option being very much greater. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Nov 6 01:09:40 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 00:09:40 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <4AF2C088.9060301@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <3CF67DFA-6CD3-4781-8006-05DB57983516@btinternet.com> <4AF2C088.9060301@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <5759DC4C-EBDB-485C-8A52-6C2B227E172B@btinternet.com> On 5 Nov 2009, at 12:09, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nige2] > Gordon you've done a Richard, snipping the paragraph that admitted > that > I can't prove my estimate. Sorry Nigel - I hadn't realised that's what the other paragraph meant. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 6 01:22:09 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:22:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +=+ I find it interesting to ask the question "What is Multi?". [snip] Or is it ....... well, insert your own description....... ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In Australia the term "multi twos" is synonymous with what The Rest Of The World describes as "Brown Sticker twos". Therefore when I play Dorothy Acol I am careful to pre-Alert that we play "the European Multi 2D", so that our opponents know that we do not play "the Myxomatosis Multi 2D". Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Nov 6 01:47:38 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:47:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF3722A.7040103@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] The problem with the weak option of a multi showing 5 or 6 cards in a major, instead of guaranteeing exactly 6 cards, is that partner is less able to make pass-or-correct preemptive jumps, and also less able to judge defend-or-save. Another problem with opening a 5-card major at the two level is the strong chance of preempting pard -- you fail in 2H in your 5-1 fit, but were cold for +120 in 1NT. Also, if a multi 2D has these three options: (a) 6 hearts, 5-9 hcp (b) 6 spades, 5-9 hcp (c) balanced, 20-21 hcp then that version of a multi 2D is much more likely to deter the opponents from entering the auction than the Guthrie version, due to the percentage chance of the strong option being very much greater. [Nige1] I agree with the main thrust of Richard's points ... If you open a multi with a 5 or 6 card major then you more than double the frequency of the bid. Unfortunately, however, the undisciplined weak two option does make it harder for your side to continue the pre-empt or to bid constructively. A high frequency strong option (I've even played it as 18-20 flat) doesn't seem to deter opponents from bidding because they base immediate action on the premise that you hold the weak option. It does, however, mean that you can punish interference more often. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 6 02:07:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:07:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF3722A.7040103@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan, Valkenberg viewgraph 1980: "The Laws should allow a responsive STOP. When your partner announces STOP, you could say STOP!" Nigel Guthrie: >...If you open a multi with a 5 or 6 card major then you more than >double the frequency of the bid... Edgar Kaplan, Valkenberg viewgraph 1980: "To teach the opponents not to preempt against you, you must not only double them, you must also beat them." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Nov 6 04:03:51 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:03:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <4AE1ED61.4010409@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE1ED61.4010409@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AF39217.9070205@nhcc.net> [Getting back to this topic after having been unavailable for awhile...] > From: Eric Landau > It does > not follow from the fact that your opponents' prospective defenses > against varying meanings of a possible call may not affect the > meaning of that call that it may not affect whether or not you choose > to make it. There's an interesting question of causality here. If your choice to make or not make a call is affected by opponents' future agreements _and your partner knows this_, then the meaning of at least one of your calls is affected by those future agreements. The classic example is risky preempts except against penalty doublers. Your pass has a different meaning against penalty doublers than against takeout doublers. No doubt there are various solutions to the problem, but by far the simplest is to say that future agreements are not normally disclosable. > Of course their answer "depends on the meaning of your > call[]", but that only means that you may have to tell them the > meaning of your call before you can expect them to answer the damned > question. Maybe this works as well, but I'm not convinced. > How can my right to ascertain what your Blackwood response means > depend on whether your partnership defines a particular auction as a > "normal" or an "abnormal" one? The one exception to not disclosing future calls is if the RA requires those calls to be on the system card. Blackwood response fall into that category. If, however, you play some really weird intervention over Blackwood, you can't expect pairs to put their agreements about what they do then on the SC. A more practical example might be 2C(strong)-P-2D, where 2D is normally a negative and is on the SC as such, but 2D might be something else if the intervening pass has a weird meaning. > we can argue about whether a > specific understanding must or need not be disclosed, but we look to > TFLB for the answer, which cannot depend on any subordinate (and > temporally subsequent) decision as to the mechanics by which the > information is obtained. The RA's authority to specify those > mechanics does not extend to repealing the laws controlling the > substance. The SC is a special case; otherwise I agree. Actually, I guess any requirement for pre-alerting could be the same sort of special case. Prealert from NS: we play really weak preemptive overcalls but sound preemptive openings. Prealert from EW: we play forcing pass with a 1D fert. I don't know how to sort this out, but I don't think NS's jumps over 1D are likely to be weak preempts, nor do I think their "opening" jump over a forcing pass will be sound. > I read "a duty to make available its > partnership understandings" as meaning "...all of its partnership > understandings", while Steve reads it as meaning "...those of its > partnership understanding for which the RA has explicitly provided a > means of disclosure". This is a good summary of our disagreement. Appropriate questions -- whatever those are -- have to be answered, but otherwise my view is that the RA's requirements prevail. > But as soon as we admit the possibility that "not at all" might apply > under any circumstance, then the Kaplan doctrine is no more. Talk to the WBFLC, not me! > It has > ceased to be, it has expired and gone to meet its maker, it rests in > peace, it has kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run > down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. It is an > ex-doctrine. Its ghost may haunt the lawbook, appearing before us in > the form of L40A1(b), but can no longer have any power or relevance > in the world of the living. Talk to the WBFLC, not me. (Also to a Shakespeare scholar about "shuffle off," but your meaning is clear enough.) > I have > asked repeatedly, and continue to do so, for someone to provide or > cite something -- anything -- from the WBFLC that suggests that they > were consciously aware that they were abandoning the Kaplan doctrine, > explicitly chose to do so, had any reason or justification for such a > radical action, or has any suggestion or notion as to what might take > its place for future writers or interpreters of disclosure rules. Good luck with that. Fortunately the ACBL still has its full disclosure regulations, so I think the Kaplan doctrine (at least the part dealing with past calls, which I think is all of it) is still in effect here. > It's not > supposed to matter whether or not "this is in the ACBL". The Law, in > its awesome majesty, does not change itself just because some RA > decides to modify a form. I don't see why supplementary regulations on the topic of disclosure are impossible. > If a pair may have an agreement that on a particular prospective > auction a double is for penalty if the opponents have previously > inquired as to its meaning but is for takeout if they have not, are > their opponents entitled to inquire as to whether or not they have > such an agreement before they decide whether or not to inquire as to > what a double on that auction would mean? My preferred rule is very simple: no inquiries about future events. If you prefer a different rule, the above might suggest some of the complications you may face. In particular, the inquiry you suggest might already change the opponents' agreement. You can see the paradox coming: "I never tell the truth." From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Nov 6 04:09:44 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:09:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 5 In-Reply-To: <4AEB03D9.20802@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AEB03D9.20802@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AF39378.6060800@nhcc.net> >> South is playing in notrump, and West is cashing established cards in a >> long suit. West has no entries. East revokes on one of the winners but >> doesn't notice, and EW win no more tricks after West's suit is finished. >> The revoke comes to light at the end of the deal. > From: David Grabiner > Unless I have a very good reason (and not just West saying, "No clubs, > partner?"; I once asked partner about a revoke and she still didn't > notice it), > I would rule a one-trick penalty. Just to close the loop on this, I am fairly sure John Probst would have ruled under L23. Otherwise, East does well to pretend not to notice even if he does. Anybody else want to weigh in? From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Nov 6 04:18:01 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:18:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] bid box rules In-Reply-To: <4AF2FB45.9010800@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AF2FB45.9010800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AF39569.4030708@nhcc.net> > From: Herman De Wael > Did either of those jurisdictions tell you that > they absolutely don't want the other bidding box regulation? I'm fairly sure that would be the case for the ACBL, though of course I cannot know for sure. No doubt you have a better sense of the WBF/EBL/BBF(?) view than I do. > Are they both so stupid as to not agree that a single regulation for the > whole world would be preferable? Saying that certain ACBL decisions are, um..., "hard to understand" would be accurate. Though I think they have the bidding box regulations exactly right, and the rest of the world is wrong on that one. I agree that worldwide uniformity would be desirable, just as we now have as to when a card is played, which is closely analogous. However, given the obvious compromises in the latest FLB, I'm not surprised that uniformity was thought unachievable. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 6 04:43:17 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:43:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF39217.9070205@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner asserted: >There's an interesting question of causality here. If your choice to >make or not make a call is affected by opponents' future agreements >_and your partner knows this_, then the meaning of at least one of >your calls is affected by those future agreements. The classic >example is risky preempts except against penalty doublers. Your pass >has a different meaning against penalty doublers than against takeout >doublers. Richard Hills quibbles: Changing your Pass to a different meaning is not necessarily practical. Some years ago the partnership of Hashmat Ali and Richard Hills pre- Alerted our penalty doubles at the start of a match against youthful experts Mark Abraham (gafiated blmler) and Nic Jonsson. Rather than go through the hassle of changing their style and methods for just one match, with consequent memory problems and loss of negative inferences, Abraham-Jonsson elected to keep unchanged meanings for all their calls. But on one board Hashmat opened 1H (5+ hearts, 10-14 hcp). Mark then, in accordance with his not vul partnership style, preempted 3C with AJTxxx and little else. I held 11 hcp including a singleton heart and Qxx in clubs, so doubled for penalty. Hashmat held 12 hcp, and Kxx in clubs. So if we had been playing negative doubles neither Hashmat nor I would have been sufficiently short in clubs to able to nail Mark by one of us doubling for takeout (then the other one of us passing for penalty). Thus the result of the Ali-Hills method and style was +500 on a board where "real" experts would only be collecting undertricks in 50s. Changing your Pass to a different meaning is not necessarily legal. Law 40A1(b) uses "...before commencing play...The Regulating Authority specifies...". Some Regulating Authorities prohibit a partnership from voluntarily changing their methods during a session. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 6 05:33:20 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:33:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF39378.6060800@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Jeff Rubens: >>>South is playing in notrump, and West is cashing established cards in a >>>long suit. West has no entries. East revokes on one of the winners but >>>doesn't notice, and EW win no more tricks after West's suit is finished. >>>The revoke comes to light at the end of the deal. David Grabiner: >>Unless I have a very good reason (and not just West saying, "No clubs, >>partner?"; I once asked partner about a revoke and she still didn't >>notice it), I would rule a one-trick penalty. Steve Willner: >Just to close the loop on this, I am fairly sure John Probst would have >ruled under L23. Otherwise, East does well to pretend not to notice >even if he does. Anybody else want to weigh in? Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity..." Richard Hills: Just such a situation cost my side a game swing in a national championship. I cashed my winners in an unexpected order, giving pard an incentive to revoke, which she promptly took. Although the revoke was not established, the consequent lead rectification for the penalty card meant that we were -600 instead of +100. But how is one to interpret "in the opinion of the Director"? Must the Director's opinion be formed in accordance with the Law 85A1 "balance of probabilities"? Or is the probabilisticly unbalanced "could have been aware" more relevant? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 6 06:43:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:43:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Gross [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Some people have funny ideas about the definition of "negotiating in good faith". A recent Aussie example was a political party saying, "We wish to negotiate in good faith. Here is a complete list of our preferred amendments to your legislation. But even if you adopt our complete list of amendments (and do not make any amendments yourselves), we may still reject your legislation." Likewise, the ACBL supposedly "negotiated in good faith" with the World Bridge Federation, the European Bridge League, and the Card Committee of the Portland Club to create the 1993 Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge. But ten years later the ACBL decided to unilaterally (and perhaps erroneously) revise the 1993 Laws. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets Marvin French, December 2005: >While at the Denver NABC, I was surprised to see that the ACBL >Product Store was selling a new "Authorized Version" of the rubber >bridge laws, dated 2003, effective 1 January 2003. The Product Store >manager told me that there was only one change to the 1993 Laws, >which was to add an asterisked footnote to the scores shown in L80. >The items asterisked were the 300 points for the only game in an >unfinished rubber and 100 points for the only partscore in an >unfinished game. I could find no other changes, at least not in a >quick comparison. > >The footnote: > >*When there is more than one table in play for a session, both sides >may (should) receive the bonus for a partscore or game in an >unfinished rubber. > >I disagree with this. Evidently they want to add, say, two 300 >bonuses to each pair's score when reporting the table result. But >rubber bridge scores are net, not gross. A game for each side in an >unfinished rubber is a net zero, so the two-way bonus should not be >added to the net score that is reported for each pair. Perhaps I >misunderstand. Grattan Endicott, December 2005: +=+ I asked the Portland Club what information they have. This is part of the reply: <> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Nov 6 09:37:02 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:37:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <3CF67DFA-6CD3-4781 -8006-05DB57983516@btinternet.com> <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4AF3E02E.10403@meteo.fr> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ I find it interesting to ask the question "What is Multi?". Is it > for example as described by the WBF: "A two level opening bid in a minor > showing a weak two in Hearts or Spades, whether with or without the > option of strong hand types." ? > Or is it as the EBU describes it: "The term 'Multi' without > qualification means a traditional Multi, i.e. it is a 2D opening that > shows one of these three possibilities: > (a) a weak hand with Hearts; > (b) a weak hand with Spades > (c) a strong hand of one or more types. > A 2D opening that does not follow this rule should not be described > as a Multi unless an appropriate qualification is included." > Or is it ....... well, insert your own description....... > > [Nige1] > As stated, the case under discussion was in an EBU event. Hence, my > guess is that EBU Orange Book regulations were in force and the "multi" > definition was the EBU Orange book definition, as quoted by Grattan. as far as i know, a 2D opening that only includes weak major options is not called multi but wagner. jpr > > Is the lesson, once again, that players are expected to take such > regulations with a pinch of salt? -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Nov 6 09:45:44 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:45:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF3E238.9090705@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Philippe P?tain (1856-1951), as French commander at Verdun: > > "On les aura!" > > Robert Nivelle (1856-1924), as P?tain's successor at Verdun: > > "Ils ne passeront pas!" dolores ibarruri (1895-1989), better known as "la pasionaria", during spanish civil war (1936): "no pasaran" jpr > > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > >> Gordon you've done a Richard, [snip] ping the paragraph that admitted >> that I can't prove my estimate. > > Richard Hills: > > Another of my bad habits is hijacking a thread. > > Grattan Endicott, 2nd December 2005: > >>>> +=+ Oh, I don't know, Kojak. Nigel strikes me as an honest >>>> journeyman worker on blml, simply using his right to freedom of >>>> speech. He does not know what goes on in the drafting subcommittee >>>> and is unwise to jump to conclusions with scant knowledge, but we >>>> should not blind ourselves to the possibility that anyone who >>>> writes here may say something that will stop us falling into a >>>> hole, and my belief in life is that I should try to display the >>>> humility that is willing to hear and sometimes learn - even in my >>>> eighty-second year when it might be thought that I had 'been there, >>>> done that'. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > William ("Kojak") Schoder, 3rd December 2005: > >>> Perhaps you are right, Grattan. I shall search through Mr. >>> Guthrie's posting for the kernels of his intended constructive >>> criticism and help to those of us who are struggling with a hard >>> task. I should, and always will, respect his right to freedom of >>> speech, and only relegate to the trash heap those thoughts that add >>> diddely-squat (old Southern American jargon which will not appear in >>> the new Laws), can only be meant as other than constructive, and >>> suffer (.....)(you pick the word). I will diligently do so. After >>> all, in my seventy-third year I'm really just a puppy when it comes >>> to this kind of work, having also 'been there, done that' many times >>> over. >>> >>> I guess. >>> >>> Kojak > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, in my fifty-first year, yet to be there nor do that > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 6 10:27:48 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:27:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <4AF3E02E.10403@meteo.fr> References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <3CF67DFA-6CD3-4781 -8006-05DB57983516@btinternet.com> <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF3E02E.10403@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4AF3EC14.4030405@skynet.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > as far as i know, a 2D opening that only includes weak major options is > not called multi but wagner. > And this is the crux of the matter, although most players don't seem to grasp this. When a ruling says: "You are not allowed to pass a Multi", that is not what it actually says. What it actually says is that, if a Multi is passable, it is not a Multi! If OTOH you call is Wagner (or Mozart of Beethoven), you are allowed to pass it. Whether you are allowed to play Wagner is a different matter, of course. We have the same problem in Belgium. If you call your opening (2S or 2H) "Muiderberg", it means you are showing five of the major and four or more of an unknown minor, below opening strength. Some people also open 5332's, and they've been told not to call that a Muiderberg. But the players have translated this into "you are not allowed to open a Muiderberg on 5332". Not true, you are allowed to open those, but you should call them "Muiderheuvel" or something instead (for our non-dutch-speakers, "berg" means mountain, so the logical name for the even weaker version is a hill "heuvel" - some people have described their opening as Muider-valley meanwhile). Too often, players misunderstand regulations, and too often as well, it is because directors misexplain them (or misunderstand them also). Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 6 10:36:44 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:36:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: References: <4AF04FAC.2020901@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AF25509.9050908@nhcc.net> <4AF2D06C.2000000@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4AF3EE2C.2040207@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ First let me say that in my Orange Book (2006, last updated 2008) > the wording quoted is found at 11G6(v). There is also a level 4 general > regulation [11H8 - note (i)] saying "Responder is expected to explore > game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger types of > his partner's opening bid". When I was chairman of the EBU L&E C > we had concerns about players passing natural Weak Two openers with > hands having game potential opposite near top of the range twos. I do > not recall that we extended this to the Multi at that time. > AG : what about a one-bid ? Especially an American one. If we had to explore game facing the potential maximum of such a bid, we'd never pass. More generally, trying for the perfect maximum is losing tactics. Do you intend to demand that we use losing tactics ? Also, one has to take into account the fact that one might know it's impossible for partner to have the strong type. A popular form on Multi is : weak in a major or strong (Acol 2 or better) in a minor. Now say you hold : x - x - KQ10xxxx - AQJx.. Are you compelled to try for a game because this hand has huge potential facing an Acol 2-bid in a minor ? Except, of course, that parnner can't hold one. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 6 10:37:55 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:37:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF3EE73.3080208@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Also, if a multi 2D has these three options: > > (a) 6 hearts, 5-9 hcp > (b) 6 spades, 5-9 hcp > (c) balanced, 20-21 hcp > > then that version of a multi 2D is much more likely to deter the > opponents from entering the auction than the Guthrie version, due > to the percentage chance of the strong option being very much > greater. > > AG : about 1.5 % according to my calculations. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 12:15:06 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:15:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <4AF3EC14.4030405@skynet.be> References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF3E02E.10403@meteo.fr> <4AF3EC14.4030405@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2009/11/6 Herman De Wael : > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> >> as far as i know, a 2D opening that only includes weak major options is >> not called multi but wagner. >> > > And this is the crux of the matter, although most players don't seem to > grasp this. > When a ruling says: "You are not allowed to pass a Multi", that is not > what it actually says. What it actually says is that, if a Multi is > passable, it is not a Multi! Really?!? If I have seven small diamonds and a near Yarborough, I'll pass a Multi 2D showing a w2M or a balanced 20-21. And we do play Multi in this case. No ruling and/or regulation can change that fact. > > If OTOH you call is Wagner (or Mozart of Beethoven), you are allowed to > pass it. Whether you are allowed to play Wagner is a different matter, > of course. > > We have the same problem in Belgium. If you call your opening (2S or 2H) > "Muiderberg", it means you are showing five of the major and four or > more of an unknown minor, below opening strength. Some people also open > 5332's, and they've been told not to call that a Muiderberg. But the > players have translated this into "you are not allowed to open a > Muiderberg on 5332". Not true, you are allowed to open those, but you > should call them "Muiderheuvel" or something instead (for our > non-dutch-speakers, "berg" means mountain, so the logical name for the > even weaker version is a hill "heuvel" - some people have described > their opening as Muider-valley meanwhile). > > Too often, players misunderstand regulations, and too often as well, it > is because directors misexplain them (or misunderstand them also). > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From blml at arcor.de Fri Nov 6 14:03:25 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:03:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9777889.1257512605732.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The problem with the weak option of a multi showing 5 or 6 cards > in a major, instead of guaranteeing exactly 6 cards, is that > partner is less able to make pass-or-correct preemptive jumps, and > also less able to judge defend-or-save. Another problem with > opening a 5-card major at the two level is the strong chance of > preempting pard -- you fail in 2H in your 5-1 fit, but were cold > for +120 in 1NT. > > Also, if a multi 2D has these three options: > > (a) 6 hearts, 5-9 hcp > (b) 6 spades, 5-9 hcp > (c) balanced, 20-21 hcp > > then that version of a multi 2D is much more likely to deter the > opponents from entering the auction than the Guthrie version, due > to the percentage chance of the strong option being very much > greater. The 5 card suit weak twos also make constructive bidding much more difficult. There simply is not enough room to find out all of o hearts or spades o minimum or maximum o 5card or six card suit o much less any side values or singletons All of that does not necessarily mean that 5 card suit weak twos are a net loss. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Nov 6 14:45:04 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:45:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <9777889.1257512605732.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <96A3A609853C443FA09D5626A9BC9BE5@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Dehn" To: Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The problem with the weak option of a multi showing 5 or 6 cards > in a major, instead of guaranteeing exactly 6 cards, is that > partner is less able to make pass-or-correct preemptive jumps, and > also less able to judge defend-or-save. Another problem with > opening a 5-card major at the two level is the strong chance of > preempting pard -- you fail in 2H in your 5-1 fit, but were cold > for +120 in 1NT. > > Also, if a multi 2D has these three options: > > (a) 6 hearts, 5-9 hcp > (b) 6 spades, 5-9 hcp > (c) balanced, 20-21 hcp > > then that version of a multi 2D is much more likely to deter the > opponents from entering the auction than the Guthrie version, due > to the percentage chance of the strong option being very much > greater. But still around 0%. A priori it may be higher but not a posteriori. If you have a hand that is worth a two level overcall (around 12 HCP) than the odds that opener has a 20-count are virtually 0. If it does happen then you will have a story to tell to your grandchildren for many decades to come. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mapa fotoradarow! Pobierz >> http://link.interia.pl/f2413 From blml at arcor.de Fri Nov 6 15:20:13 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:20:13 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <96A3A609853C443FA09D5626A9BC9BE5@sfora4869e47f1> References: <96A3A609853C443FA09D5626A9BC9BE5@sfora4869e47f1> <9777889.1257512605732.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <23076058.1257517213912.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > The problem with the weak option of a multi showing 5 or 6 cards > > in a major, instead of guaranteeing exactly 6 cards, is that > > partner is less able to make pass-or-correct preemptive jumps, and > > also less able to judge defend-or-save. Another problem with > > opening a 5-card major at the two level is the strong chance of > > preempting pard -- you fail in 2H in your 5-1 fit, but were cold > > for +120 in 1NT. > > > > Also, if a multi 2D has these three options: > > > > (a) 6 hearts, 5-9 hcp > > (b) 6 spades, 5-9 hcp > > (c) balanced, 20-21 hcp > > > > then that version of a multi 2D is much more likely to deter the > > opponents from entering the auction than the Guthrie version, due > > to the percentage chance of the strong option being very much > > greater. > > > But still around 0%. A priori it may be higher but not a posteriori. > If you have a hand that is worth a two > level overcall (around 12 HCP) than the odds that opener > has a 20-count are virtually 0. > If it does happen then you will have a story to tell > to your grandchildren for many decades to come. I don't think it is that rare. I remember several hands where opponents overcalled a multi, and opener had the strong NT hand. This was not always good for our side because a 2H or 2S overcall can easily cost less than the value of a game. The overcaller sits behind the strong NT hand. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 6 16:01:39 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:01:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <4AF39217.9070205@nhcc.net> References: <4AE1ED61.4010409@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AF39217.9070205@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5F7763C1-5F0E-47D2-86A4-CBFB3456E761@starpower.net> On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:03 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > The one exception to not disclosing future calls is if the RA requires > those calls to be on the system card. Blackwood response fall into > that > category. If, however, you play some really weird intervention over > Blackwood, you can't expect pairs to put their agreements about what > they do then on the SC. A more practical example might be > 2C(strong)-P-2D, where 2D is normally a negative and is on the SC as > such, but 2D might be something else if the intervening pass has a > weird > meaning. > >> we can argue about whether a >> specific understanding must or need not be disclosed, but we look to >> TFLB for the answer, which cannot depend on any subordinate (and >> temporally subsequent) decision as to the mechanics by which the >> information is obtained. The RA's authority to specify those >> mechanics does not extend to repealing the laws controlling the >> substance. > > The SC is a special case; otherwise I agree. Actually, I guess any > requirement for pre-alerting could be the same sort of special case. And this is the heart of our disagreement. Consider the fact that (at least at times past; it may not be as true these days), the ACBL modifies its CC form with rather more frequency than clubs or units reorder them in bulk, but has explicitly allowed the older forms to remain in use until current supplies are exhausted. The result is that as one moves from venue to venue one encounters slightly different CC forms, and pairs with prewritten CCs may not be using the same form as that currently being supplied blank at that venue. There is no requirement to use the most recently printed form, nor for everyone in a particular game to use the same one. Granted, we're talking about minor differences from one form to another. But I cannot accept the fact that minor differences in the particular form being used at a particular venue, or the particular form being carried by a particular partnership, means that there are minor differences as to which particular aspects of one's partnership agreements must be disclosed to one's opponents. My fundamental argument is simply that the *substance* of disclosure and the *manner* of disclosure are two different things, and should not be conflated when reading (or writing) the rules regarding one or the other. > Prealert from NS: we play really weak preemptive overcalls but sound > preemptive openings. > Prealert from EW: we play forcing pass with a 1D fert. > > I don't know how to sort this out, but I don't think NS's jumps > over 1D > are likely to be weak preempts, nor do I think their "opening" jump > over > a forcing pass will be sound. > >> I read "a duty to make available its >> partnership understandings" as meaning "...all of its partnership >> understandings", while Steve reads it as meaning "...those of its >> partnership understanding for which the RA has explicitly provided a >> means of disclosure". > > This is a good summary of our disagreement. Appropriate questions -- > whatever those are -- have to be answered, but otherwise my view is > that > the RA's requirements prevail. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 6 16:20:14 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:20:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1BB9745E-2F95-479C-AD76-AB7031E9BAA2@starpower.net> On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:43 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Steve Willner asserted: > >> There's an interesting question of causality here. If your choice to >> make or not make a call is affected by opponents' future agreements >> _and your partner knows this_, then the meaning of at least one of >> your calls is affected by those future agreements. The classic >> example is risky preempts except against penalty doublers. Your pass >> has a different meaning against penalty doublers than against takeout >> doublers. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Changing your Pass to a different meaning is not necessarily > practical. > > Some years ago the partnership of Hashmat Ali and Richard Hills pre- > Alerted our penalty doubles at the start of a match against youthful > experts Mark Abraham (gafiated blmler) and Nic Jonsson. Rather than > go through the hassle of changing their style and methods for just one > match, with consequent memory problems and loss of negative > inferences, > Abraham-Jonsson elected to keep unchanged meanings for all their > calls. > > But on one board Hashmat opened 1H (5+ hearts, 10-14 hcp). Mark then, > in accordance with his not vul partnership style, preempted 3C with > AJTxxx and little else. I held 11 hcp including a singleton heart > and Qxx in clubs, so doubled for penalty. Hashmat held 12 hcp, and > Kxx in clubs. > > So if we had been playing negative doubles neither Hashmat nor I > would have been sufficiently short in clubs to able to nail Mark by > one of us doubling for takeout (then the other one of us passing for > penalty). > > Thus the result of the Ali-Hills method and style was +500 on a board > where "real" experts would only be collecting undertricks in 50s. > > Changing your Pass to a different meaning is not necessarily legal. > > Law 40A1(b) uses "...before commencing play...The Regulating Authority > specifies...". Some Regulating Authorities prohibit a partnership > from voluntarily changing their methods during a session. Let's be careful not to confuse what Richard calls "changing your Pass" with "changing your methods". "Your methods" are defined by your partnership agreements. If you have an explicit agreement that, for example, Qxxxxx or better is sufficient for a weak two opening against takeout doublers but require KQxxxx or better against penalty doublers, then that is "your methods", and if you bid consistently with that agreement throughout a session you have not "changed your methods", any more than you would have had you had a similar agreement regarding vulnerability. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Nov 6 16:25:32 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:25:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) References: <1BB9745E-2F95-479C-AD76-AB7031E9BAA2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" > Let's be careful not to confuse what Richard calls "changing your > Pass" with "changing your methods". "Your methods" are defined by > your partnership agreements. If you have an explicit agreement that, > for example, Qxxxxx or better is sufficient for a weak two opening > against takeout doublers but require KQxxxx or better against penalty > doublers, You cannot have that agreement. Because I play penalty doubles against weak two's that can be made on Qxxxxx and T/O doubles against weak two's that require at least KQxxxx. The opening bid comes first. This problem has been discussed (and solved) about 1548524 times (15525 times on this list). Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dzwonki na telefon! Pobierz >> http://link.interia.pl/f2411 From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 6 16:28:34 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:28:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF3E02E.10403@meteo.fr> <4AF3EC14.4030405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4AF440A2.1030203@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/11/6 Herman De Wael : >> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >>> as far as i know, a 2D opening that only includes weak major options is >>> not called multi but wagner. >>> >> And this is the crux of the matter, although most players don't seem to >> grasp this. >> When a ruling says: "You are not allowed to pass a Multi", that is not >> what it actually says. What it actually says is that, if a Multi is >> passable, it is not a Multi! > > Really?!? > If I have seven small diamonds and a near Yarborough, I'll pass a > Multi 2D showing a w2M or a balanced 20-21. And we do play Multi in > this case. No ruling and/or regulation can change that fact. > Well Harald, the EBU regulation soes precisely that. So next time you play in England, you won't be able to call what you are playing "Multi". Call it "Norwegian Multi" if you will, but don't call it Multi. Since Multi, in England, is, by definition, non-passable. Of course by now you will have seen the flaw in the EBU's reasoning. I doubt if anyone still says "Multi" in England, they are well advised to call their convention "Norwegian Multi". Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 6 17:21:51 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:21:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> References: <1BB9745E-2F95-479C-AD76-AB7031E9BAA2@starpower.net> <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4AF44D1F.5060706@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > > >> Let's be careful not to confuse what Richard calls "changing your >> Pass" with "changing your methods". "Your methods" are defined by >> your partnership agreements. If you have an explicit agreement that, >> for example, Qxxxxx or better is sufficient for a weak two opening >> against takeout doublers but require KQxxxx or better against penalty >> doublers, >> > > You cannot have that agreement. Because I play penalty > doubles against weak two's that can be made on Qxxxxx > and T/O doubles against weak two's that require at least > KQxxxx. > > The opening bid comes first. This problem has been > discussed (and solved) about 1548524 times > (15525 times on this list). > AG : indded, but absolutely impossible to enforce, because those who play light weak 2-bids will state it, then you'll answer you play penalty doubles and then they will find some reason at the table not to open light. And above all, it's good policy occasionally and randomly to avoid preempting on hands that fit the description for the bid, so they'll just tell you that was one of those times. Yesterday, I dodn't open 2H on Kx - KJ10xxx - 9xxx - x, about the most obvious weak 2-bid I had ever seen. Don't ask me why. We scored 87%. Best regards Alain From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 17:32:04 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:32:04 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> References: <1BB9745E-2F95-479C-AD76-AB7031E9BAA2@starpower.net> <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0911060832n3bcbbad5pd4ab53b916fca55f@mail.gmail.com> From: Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > >> Let's be careful not to confuse what Richard calls "changing your >> Pass" with "changing your methods". ?"Your methods" are defined by >> your partnership agreements. ?If you have an explicit agreement that, >> for example, Qxxxxx or better is sufficient for a weak two opening >> against takeout doublers but require KQxxxx or better against penalty >> doublers, > > You cannot have that agreement. Because I play penalty > doubles against weak two's that can be made on Qxxxxx > and T/O doubles against weak two's that require at least > KQxxxx. > > The opening bid comes first. This problem has been > discussed (and solved) about 1548524 times > (15525 times on this list). > Yes, that was my understanding. Consider the following two agreements: Agreement A: Penalty doubles against weak twos that might have only one honor. Agreement B: Must have two honors against penalty doublers. Agreement A is legal, but B is illegal, at least that is what I have thought has long been settled. Risking stating the obvious, I will spell out the problem with allowing B as a legal agreement. The player who plays B is considering a weak two with Qxxxxx. He asks if the double would be penalty. "Yes, if you play one honor is enough." "Since double would be penalty, we require two honors for a weak two." "Since you require two honors, double would not be penalty." "Since double would not be penalty, we play that one honor is enough." And so on. One top American BLMLer explained to me in a private email his belief that opponents should not be allowed to know about future doubling propensities before making an opening pre-empt. More generally, he would like the defensive methods part of the convention card to be unavailable until after making an opening bid. That seems to me the best way to avoid the problem, because it makes enforcement much easier. Jerry Fusselman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 6 13:19:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:19:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi References: <4AF04FAC.2020901@cfa.harvard.edu><4AF25509.9050908@nhcc.net> <4AF2D06C.2000000@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF3EE2C.2040207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ First let me say that in my Orange Book (2006, last updated 2008) > the wording quoted is found at 11G6(v). There is also a level 4 general > regulation [11H8 - note (i)] saying "Responder is expected to explore > game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger types of > his partner's opening bid". When I was chairman of the EBU L&E C > we had concerns about players passing natural Weak Two openers with > hands having game potential opposite near top of the range twos. I do > not recall that we extended this to the Multi at that time. > AG : what about a one-bid ? Especially an American one. If we had to explore game facing the potential maximum of such a bid, we'd never pass. More generally, trying for the perfect maximum is losing tactics. Do you intend to demand that we use losing tactics ? Also, one has to take into account the fact that one might know it's impossible for partner to have the strong type. A popular form on Multi is : weak in a major or strong (Acol 2 or better) in a minor. Now say you hold : x - x - KQ10xxxx - AQJx.. Are you compelled to try for a game because this hand has huge potential facing an Acol 2-bid in a minor ? Except, of course, that parnner can't hold one. +=+ Do you have weak one openers - i.e. less than standard opening values by definition? If not I do not believe the question arises. The progress of the auction will define hand values. Your 'say you hold' example is a bit strong. I would open the hand with only K J x x in the second suit. My hand evaluation has been strongly influenced by Losing Trick Count. Some regulations might say I couldn't but I regard that as daft, restricting good bridge. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 6 17:36:11 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:36:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> References: <1BB9745E-2F95-479C-AD76-AB7031E9BAA2@starpower.net> <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <2B1A118E-F9D5-4E99-A324-81C38B2A7028@starpower.net> On Nov 6, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> Let's be careful not to confuse what Richard calls "changing your >> Pass" with "changing your methods". "Your methods" are defined by >> your partnership agreements. If you have an explicit agreement that, >> for example, Qxxxxx or better is sufficient for a weak two opening >> against takeout doublers but require KQxxxx or better against penalty >> doublers, > > You cannot have that agreement. Because I play penalty > doubles against weak two's that can be made on Qxxxxx > and T/O doubles against weak two's that require at least > KQxxxx. I "cannot" have that agreement against Konrad's defense, and I don't. I have an agreement about weak twos against takeout doublers, and I have an agreement about weak two's against penalty doublers. I have no agreement against Konrad's conditional doubles, which are neither ("we've never discussed it and it hasn't ever come up before"). Both my agreements and Konrad's are incomplete (mine are undefined against conditional doubles, his are undefined against pairs with no agreement as to minimum suit quality for a weak two), but that doesn't affect the nature of the agreements we do have. > The opening bid comes first. This problem has been > discussed (and solved) about 1548524 times > (15525 times on this list). If so, I take that to mean that if I have agreements about weak twos against both takeout and penalty doubles then I must also make some agreement about Konrad's conditional doubles. That may or may not be true (I presume it would be subject to local regulation), but has nothing at all to do with the point of the post from which Konrad quotes. Which was simply that if I have those agreements -- complete or incomplete, legal or illegal -- and stick to them, I am not in violation of any regulation against changing my methods in mid-session. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 6 18:06:46 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:06:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Passing the multi In-Reply-To: References: <4AF04FAC.2020901@cfa.harvard.edu><4AF25509.9050908@nhcc.net> <4AF2D06C.2000000@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF3EE2C.2040207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AF457A6.3030102@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Repetition is the only form of permanence > that nature can achieve." > ~ George Santayana > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 9:36 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing the multi > > > Grattan a ?crit : > >> +=+ First let me say that in my Orange Book (2006, last updated 2008) >> the wording quoted is found at 11G6(v). There is also a level 4 general >> regulation [11H8 - note (i)] saying "Responder is expected to explore >> game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger types of >> his partner's opening bid". When I was chairman of the EBU L&E C >> we had concerns about players passing natural Weak Two openers with >> hands having game potential opposite near top of the range twos. I do >> not recall that we extended this to the Multi at that time. >> >> > AG : what about a one-bid ? Especially an American one. If we had to > explore game facing the potential maximum of such a bid, we'd never pass. > > More generally, trying for the perfect maximum is losing tactics. Do you > intend to demand that we use losing tactics ? > > Also, one has to take into account the fact that one might know it's > impossible for partner to have the strong type. > A popular form on Multi is : weak in a major or strong (Acol 2 or > better) in a minor. > Now say you hold : x - x - KQ10xxxx - AQJx.. > Are you compelled to try for a game because this hand has huge potential > facing an Acol 2-bid in a minor ? Except, of course, that parnner can't > hold one. > > +=+ Do you have weak one openers - i.e. less than standard opening > values by definition? If not I do not believe the question arises. The > progress of the auction will define hand values. > Your 'say you hold' example is a bit strong. I would open the > hand with only K J x x in the second suit. My hand evaluation has > been strongly influenced by Losing Trick Count. Some regulations > might say I couldn't but I regard that as daft, restricting good bridge. > Sorry, you didn't understand the case. That's responder's hand. When I hold this, I know partner can't hold an Acol 2-bid in a minor. My honors in the minors are too strong. Do I have to try for game in case he has ? Idf that's the rule, it's absurd. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 6 18:08:05 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:08:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0911060832n3bcbbad5pd4ab53b916fca55f@mail.gmail.com> References: <1BB9745E-2F95-479C-AD76-AB7031E9BAA2@starpower.net> <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> <2b1e598b0911060832n3bcbbad5pd4ab53b916fca55f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AF457F5.5010301@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > One top American BLMLer explained to me in a private email his belief > that opponents should not be allowed to know about future doubling > propensities before making an opening pre-empt. More generally, he > would like the defensive methods part of the convention card to be > unavailable until after making an opening bid. That seems to me the > best way to avoid the problem, because it makes enforcement much > easier. > Not if the players know eachother's style. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 18:13:50 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:13:50 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <4AF457F5.5010301@ulb.ac.be> References: <1BB9745E-2F95-479C-AD76-AB7031E9BAA2@starpower.net> <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> <2b1e598b0911060832n3bcbbad5pd4ab53b916fca55f@mail.gmail.com> <4AF457F5.5010301@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0911060913x289883b0o13d45435dcc21ac8@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : >> One top American BLMLer explained to me in a private email his belief >> that opponents should not be allowed to know about future doubling >> propensities before making an opening pre-empt. ?More generally, he >> would like the defensive methods part of the convention card to be >> unavailable until after making an opening bid. ?That seems to me the >> best way to avoid the problem, because it makes enforcement much >> easier. >> > Not if the players know eachother's style. > True, but I would like us to do the best we can in as many cases as we can. From blml at arcor.de Fri Nov 6 19:27:23 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:27:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <4AF440A2.1030203@skynet.be> References: <4AF440A2.1030203@skynet.be> <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF3E02E.10403@meteo.fr> <4AF3EC14.4030405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <16708202.1257532043385.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > 2009/11/6 Herman De Wael : > >> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >>> as far as i know, a 2D opening that only includes weak major options is > >>> not called multi but wagner. > >>> > >> And this is the crux of the matter, although most players don't seem to > >> grasp this. > >> When a ruling says: "You are not allowed to pass a Multi", that is not > >> what it actually says. What it actually says is that, if a Multi is > >> passable, it is not a Multi! > > > > Really?!? > > If I have seven small diamonds and a near Yarborough, I'll pass a > > Multi 2D showing a w2M or a balanced 20-21. And we do play Multi in > > this case. No ruling and/or regulation can change that fact. > > > > Well Harald, the EBU regulation soes precisely that. No, it does not say that: EBU Orange Book 11 G 6 (vi) says "It is only permitted to pass a Multi 2D if responder has good reason to believe that 2D is the partnership's best contract" Seven diamonds and a near Yarborough looks ok. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From bobpark at consolidated.net Fri Nov 6 19:26:23 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:26:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> References: <1BB9745E-2F95-479C-AD76-AB7031E9BAA2@starpower.net> <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4AF46A4F.6060401@consolidated.net> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > > >> Let's be careful not to confuse what Richard calls "changing your >> Pass" with "changing your methods". "Your methods" are defined by >> your partnership agreements. If you have an explicit agreement that, >> for example, Qxxxxx or better is sufficient for a weak two opening >> against takeout doublers but require KQxxxx or better against penalty >> doublers, >> > > You cannot have that agreement. Because I play penalty > doubles against weak two's that can be made on Qxxxxx > and T/O doubles against weak two's that require at least > KQxxxx. > > The opening bid comes first. This problem has been > discussed (and solved) about 1548524 times > (15525 times on this list). > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > Well...let's see: The ACBL requires us to state on our convention card that our doubles of opposing overcalls are for penalties opposite a 1M opening. And it requires us to state the level through which we play negative doubles. Both of these requirements permit (yea, encourage) our opponents to alter their treatments...without allowing us to then modify ours. So are you saying that ACBL's CC rules conflict with the law here...as you understand it? --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091106/196a2412/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 6 21:55:22 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:55:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <4AF44D1F.5060706@ulb.ac.be> References: <1BB9745E-2F95-479C-AD76-AB7031E9BAA2@starpower.net> <37FD9EB9A4AD47EC8D06A4F4F49476E8@sfora4869e47f1> <4AF44D1F.5060706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <944C43FC-85D8-4560-A593-42A10D76BDDE@starpower.net> On Nov 6, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > >> From: "Eric Landau" >> >>> Let's be careful not to confuse what Richard calls "changing your >>> Pass" with "changing your methods". "Your methods" are defined by >>> your partnership agreements. If you have an explicit agreement >>> that, >>> for example, Qxxxxx or better is sufficient for a weak two opening >>> against takeout doublers but require KQxxxx or better against >>> penalty >>> doublers, >> >> You cannot have that agreement. Because I play penalty >> doubles against weak two's that can be made on Qxxxxx >> and T/O doubles against weak two's that require at least >> KQxxxx. >> >> The opening bid comes first. This problem has been >> discussed (and solved) about 1548524 times >> (15525 times on this list). > > AG : indded, but absolutely impossible to enforce, because those who > play light weak 2-bids will state it, then you'll answer you play > penalty doubles and then they will find some reason at the table > not to > open light. And above all, it's good policy occasionally and > randomly to > avoid preempting on hands that fit the description for the bid, so > they'll just tell you that was one of those times. > > Yesterday, I dodn't open 2H on Kx - KJ10xxx - 9xxx - x, about the most > obvious weak 2-bid I had ever seen. Don't ask me why. We scored 87%. Notwithstanding that some previous discussion in this forum might suggest that it may be illegal, the practice of "shooting" -- playing to maximize the probability of finishing "in the money" (or qualifying through) rather than to maximize your expected final session score -- remains routine, widespread, and unremarkable. Passing up a "book" preempt in the hope of generating a reasonable "non-field" result is a routine, and routinely accepted, shooting tactic. Shooting isn't really illegal, is it? OTC, where the regulations require you to "play to win", might *not* shooting be illegal? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 6 22:26:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:26:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com><4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk><4AF3E02E.10403@meteo.fr> <4AF3EC14.4030405@skynet.be> <4AF440A2.1030203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2CFEF5DF631F4AECAB8B429E5F3DA94D@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> Really?!? >> If I have seven small diamonds and a near Yarborough, >> I'll pass a Multi 2D showing a w2M or a balanced 20-21. >> And we do play Multi in this case. No ruling and/or >> regulation can change that fact. >> > > Well Harald, the EBU regulation does precisely that. > Herman. > +=+ Is that really right? Allowing that the power is to regulate partnership understandings, how can it affect the exercise of bridge judgement if there is no agreement that the Multi may be passed? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 6 23:26:07 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:26:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <5F7763C1-5F0E-47D2-86A4-CBFB3456E761@starpower.net> References: <4AE1ED61.4010409@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AF39217.9070205@nhcc.net> <5F7763C1-5F0E-47D2-86A4-CBFB3456E761@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001201ca5f30$22d84c30$6888e490$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > The one exception to not disclosing future calls is if the RA requires > > those calls to be on the system card. Blackwood response fall into > > that category. If, however, you play some really weird intervention > > over Blackwood, you can't expect pairs to put their agreements about > > what they do then on the SC. A more practical example might be > > 2C(strong)-P-2D, where 2D is normally a negative and is on the SC as > > such, but 2D might be something else if the intervening pass has a > > weird meaning. Not exactly. If a partnership wants to have two (or more) different versions of Blackwood available depending on opponents' agreement for call(s) on lower level they are perfectly free to have such agreement on their Blackwood. (This agreement must of course be declared.) Opponents may not vary their agreements for calls on a lower level depending on which version of Blackwood they decide to use. The same principle applies in general for all calls, the agreement on a call that will occur before another call must be declared before opponents need to declare the agreement on the later call if this agreement depends on the first agreement. Regards Sven. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Nov 7 00:38:34 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:38:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] LAs Message-ID: <4AF4B37A.5010009@aol.com> Not quite serious question -- but not fictional, it really did happen. At a local club here I was asked for my opinion of the following case. A diamond was the opening lead. Later when the partner of the opening leader was on lead she returned a diamond. The opening leader showed strong displeasure. A few tricks later the partner was again on lead. She still had a diamond. I'm not concerned with disciplinary action. The problem is, as I see it, to determine if another diamond lead would be a LA without the misbehaviour of her partner. This is determined on the basis of the remaining cards and the playing capacity of the player on lead. If necessary the TD can present the hand to other players of similar ability for their reaction. So far so good. Now comes the problem. The player in question was an attractive woman but miserable player. (Tragic love of bridge) Really ghastly. I have never been able to understand why she plays any card and I seriously doubt that she does. She regularly has results between 33% and 43% depending on luck and her partner. I have never seen her achieve 45%. (But since she is attractive and otherwise charming she has no problem finding (generally male) partners.) There is absolutely no bridge logic to her play; totally irrational. My suspicion is that, when on lead, she generally leads the third card from the left in her hand. Okay, how do we determine what is an LA in such a case? At the time she was on lead for the second time she had about 6 cards in her hand so probably returning a diamond was about a 17% chance. What would you do and how would you decide in such a situation? (Although the level of play in the club is pretty low there is no other player of comparable inability.) Ciao, JE From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sat Nov 7 00:49:17 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:49:17 -0000 Subject: [BLML] LAs References: <4AF4B37A.5010009@aol.com> Message-ID: <000b01ca5f3b$dfbc28c0$2401a8c0@p41600> Whatever her ability, she could (well) be influenced by pards antics. Yeah, OK in some circumstances lack of ability may be a significant factor. Total randomness does not exist even in the worst of duplicate players. Take each case on it's merits (maybe with a little sugar sometimes) but in my expereience, if you give an inch they will take a mile...again and again and ... ********************** We didn't really want the Olympics until we heard that the French might get it. ********************** > > Not quite serious question -- but not fictional, it really did happen. > > At a local club here I was asked for my opinion of the following case. > A diamond was the opening lead. Later when the partner of the opening > leader was on lead she returned a diamond. The opening leader showed > strong displeasure. > A few tricks later the partner was again on lead. She still had a > diamond. > I'm not concerned with disciplinary action. The problem is, as I see > it, to determine if another diamond lead would be a LA without the > misbehaviour of her partner. This is determined on the basis of the > remaining cards and the playing capacity of the player on lead. If > necessary the TD can present the hand to other players of similar > ability for their reaction. So far so good. Now comes the problem. > The player in question was an attractive woman but miserable player. > (Tragic love of bridge) Really ghastly. I have never been able to > understand why she plays any card and I seriously doubt that she does. > She regularly has results between 33% and 43% depending on luck and her > partner. I have never seen her achieve 45%. (But since she is > attractive and otherwise charming she has no problem finding (generally > male) partners.) > There is absolutely no bridge logic to her play; totally irrational. My > suspicion is that, when on lead, she generally leads the third card from > the left in her hand. > Okay, how do we determine what is an LA in such a case? At the time she > was on lead for the second time she had about 6 cards in her hand so > probably returning a diamond was about a 17% chance. > What would you do and how would you decide in such a situation? > (Although the level of play in the club is pretty low there is no other > player of comparable inability.) Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 7 00:44:25 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:44:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Gross [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <874B2FEEEBDA4A019EF5F7B0A3F0C1A9@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills: > > Some people have funny ideas about the definition of "negotiating > in good faith". > > A recent Aussie example was a political party saying, "We wish to > negotiate in good faith. Here is a complete list of our preferred > amendments to your legislation. But even if you adopt our > complete > list of amendments (and do not make any amendments yourselves), we > may still reject your legislation." > > Likewise, the ACBL supposedly "negotiated in good faith" with the > World Bridge Federation, the European Bridge League, and the Card > Committee of the Portland Club to create the 1993 Laws of Contract > (Rubber) Bridge. > > But ten years later the ACBL decided to unilaterally (and perhaps > erroneously) revise the 1993 Laws. > > Marvin French, December 2005: > >>While at the Denver NABC, I was surprised to see that the ACBL >>Product Store was selling a new "Authorized Version" of the rubber >>bridge laws, dated 2003, effective 1 January 2003. The Product >>Store >>manager told me that there was only one change to the 1993 Laws, >>which was to add an asterisked footnote to the scores shown in >>L80. >>The items asterisked were the 300 points for the only game in an >>unfinished rubber and 100 points for the only partscore in an >>unfinished game. I could find no other changes, at least not in a >>quick comparison. >> >>The footnote: >> >>*When there is more than one table in play for a session, both >>sides >>may (should) receive the bonus for a partscore or game in an >>unfinished rubber. >> >>I disagree with this. Evidently they want to add, say, two 300 >>bonuses to each pair's score when reporting the table result. But >>rubber bridge scores are net, not gross. A game for each side in >>an >>unfinished rubber is a net zero, so the two-way bonus should not >>be >>added to the net score that is reported for each pair. Perhaps I >>misunderstand. > > Grattan Endicott, December 2005: > > +=+ I asked the Portland Club what information they have. This > is part of the reply: > > < not > deduct losing scores is quite commonly used in the UK in > semi-social > rubber bridge tournaments (charities, tennis clubs etc.) where > there > is no monetary stake based on points scored. I do not like it, > because it distorts the game too much (against weaker pairs in a > large field you should automatically double or redouble, and > sacrifices are out). However it is argued that competitors feel > better with a small plus score rather than a minus. The "marathon" social games played in San Diego, in which pairs play a different host pair each week, with scores accumulated, use gross scoring. Because of the potential abuse you mentioned, redoubling is not allowed. I guess that applies to redoubles of a takeout double, but I would redouble anyway with no objection made. When I politely questioned the Marathon leader about the scoring, she said, "When you make a score you are entitled to keep it." So I just doubled every opposing contract when playing a pair low in the standingss, and profited greatly. Many of the defeated contracts were ice cold but went down anyway. I'm lying, I didn't do that. But I could have. > > Where gross scores are being used I think it is fair and > reasonable > for both sides to receive the bonus for a partscore or game in an > unfinished rubber, but not, as Marvin French says, where scores > are > net. > > As the footnote can only apply to gross scoring, it does not make > sense as the only change to the 1993 Laws, which provide only for > net. It is hard to believe the ACBL would be guilty of such an > error, and I suspect that, despite what the store manager said, > there are further changes in their "new authorized version" making > provision for gross scoring as an option. Not so. The footnote is in violation of Law 80 - Incomplete Rubber If only one game has been completed, the winners of that game are credited with 300 points; if only one side has a partscore or partscores in a game not completed, that side is credited with 100 points; the trick points and premium points of each side are then added, and the side with the greater number of points wins the difference between the two total. Marv: There is no premium mentioned for the situation in which both sides have a game on or when both sides have an active partscore. Nor is there any new language in support of gross scoring. Whoever added that footnote (I suspect Gary Blaiss, who did the "2008" Laws for the ACBL) probably did so at the urging of a party bridge-playing friend, spouse, or relative, not at the direction of the ACBL LC. But that's a guess. > > Whatever the changes, the Portland Club has not been consulted or > informed about them. Of course, any group can play what methods > they > like, selecting from the Laws as they wish (Chicago, for instance, > is > not provided for in the 1993 Laws), but surely the Laws themselves > should only be altered by agreement between the various > promulgating > bodies.>> Chicago is in my copy of the "Authorized" 1993 Laws, but it is called "Four-Deal Bridge," aka Chicago. Same with the "Authorized" 2003 Laws. The scoring is traditional, with partscores carried over to the next deal,.but the ACBL web site says Chicago, aka Four-Deal Bridge, uses duplicate-type scoring (e.g., +140 for 3S) with no carryover of partscores. Both editions include the WBF LC, the European Bridge League, and the Card Committee of the Portland Club as "promulgatings bodies." The Drafting Committees for both editions consists only of ACBL LC members (Kaplan, Allison, Stern, Cohen, and Wolff). I can't find the rubber bridge laws on either the WBF web site or ecatsbrige, am I blind or what? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 7 02:48:36 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:48:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] LAs In-Reply-To: <4AF4B37A.5010009@aol.com> References: <4AF4B37A.5010009@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:38:34 -0500, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Not quite serious question -- but not fictional, it really did happen. > > At a local club here I was asked for my opinion of the following case. > A diamond was the opening lead. Later when the partner of the opening > leader was on lead she returned a diamond. The opening leader showed > strong displeasure. > A few tricks later the partner was again on lead. She still had a > diamond. > I'm not concerned with disciplinary action. The problem is, as I see > it, to determine if another diamond lead would be a LA without the > misbehaviour of her partner. This is determined on the basis of the > remaining cards and the playing capacity of the player on lead. If > necessary the TD can present the hand to other players of similar > ability for their reaction. So far so good. Now comes the problem. > The player in question was an attractive woman but miserable player. > (Tragic love of bridge) Really ghastly. I have never been able to > understand why she plays any card and I seriously doubt that she does. > She regularly has results between 33% and 43% depending on luck and her > partner. I have never seen her achieve 45%. (But since she is > attractive and otherwise charming she has no problem finding (generally > male) partners.) > There is absolutely no bridge logic to her play; totally irrational. My > suspicion is that, when on lead, she generally leads the third card from > the left in her hand. > Okay, how do we determine what is an LA in such a case? At the time she > was on lead for the second time she had about 6 cards in her hand so > probably returning a diamond was about a 17% chance. > What would you do and how would you decide in such a situation? > (Although the level of play in the club is pretty low there is no other > player of comparable inability.) Ciao, JE I think you answered your question. You can't really do a poll, but you can estimate that a diamond lead was as likely as anything else, for a player of her ability and methods. Alain I believe suggested the rule that anything within 50% of the highest probability is an LA, so leading a diamond is an obvious LA. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Nov 7 04:11:39 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:11:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <4AF44CE7.7010001@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AF44CE7.7010001@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AF4E56B.4050904@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > Consider the fact that > (at least at times past; it may not be as true these days), the ACBL > modifies its CC form with rather more frequency than clubs or units > reorder them in bulk, but has explicitly allowed the older forms to > remain in use The effect of this (no doubt not the intention) is that players get to decide for themselves -- within limits -- what do disclose. > But I cannot accept the fact that minor differences in the > particular form being used at a particular venue, or the particular > form being carried by a particular partnership, means that there are > minor differences as to which particular aspects of one's partnership > agreements must be disclosed to one's opponents. Oh, come on, Eric. You know as well as anyone that the ACBL's regulations aren't always entirely sensible. > From: Robert Park > The ACBL requires us to state on our convention card that our doubles of > opposing overcalls are for penalties opposite a 1M opening. > > And it requires us to state the level through which we play negative > doubles. > > Both of these requirements permit (yea, encourage) our opponents to > alter their treatments...without allowing us to then modify ours. I think you can modify your treatment if the opponents hit you with some unusual type of overcall. Or if your agreements depend in general on details of the opponents' overcall agreement, that's fine, too. You just have to fit some kind of notation on your SC. Admittedly that's not easy to do, but we all know the ACBL's SC is very poorly adapted to any kind of unusual method. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 7 11:14:30 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:14:30 -0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas Message-ID: <24120E1763354AE79413D0A2E456933D@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas > (Harald Skj?ran) >>> Really?!? >>> If I have seven small diamonds and a near Yarborough, >>> I'll pass a Multi 2D showing a w2M or a balanced 20-21. >>> And we do play Multi in this case. No ruling and/or >>> regulation can change that fact. >>> >> >> Well Harald, the EBU regulation does precisely that. >> Herman. >> > +=+ Is that really right? Allowing that the power is to > regulate partnership understandings, how can it affect > the exercise of bridge judgement if there is no agreement > that the Multi may be passed? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ++=++ Answering my own question, I suppose the basis is "allow conditionally" in Law 40B2(a). Then we must look at the precise language of the condition. Does it require such a partnership understanding or does it require factual compliance in the auction? The regulation says "Responder *is expected to* explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener's Multi 2D." I would interpret expectation as requiring a partnership understanding. I do not see that it excludes an infrequent breach of the agreement when justified by the responding hand and bridge judgement. ~ Grattan ~ ++=++ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 7 11:26:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:26:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] LAs References: <4AF4B37A.5010009@aol.com> Message-ID: <90CBD6F2F1324095BAD27D816DF36627@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 1:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] LAs (But since she is attractive and otherwise charming she has no problem finding (generally male) partners.) >> +=+ Nor, I imagine, do generally male Directors find it tedious to be summoned regularly to her table. +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Nov 7 12:05:33 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:05:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <2CFEF5DF631F4AECAB8B429E5F3DA94D@Mildred> References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com><4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk><4AF3E02E.10403@meteo.fr> <4AF3EC14.4030405@skynet.be> <4AF440A2.1030203@skynet.be> <2CFEF5DF631F4AECAB8B429E5F3DA94D@Mildred> Message-ID: <4AF5547D.2010100@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > >>> >> Well Harald, the EBU regulation does precisely that. >> Herman. >> > +=+ Is that really right? Allowing that the power is to > regulate partnership understandings, how can it affect > the exercise of bridge judgement if there is no agreement > that the Multi may be passed? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Well Grattan, it's just what you call judgment. If you explain that your Multi cannot be passed, and you then pass it, is that judgment or lying? I call it lying (in most cases). The fact that you pass means that you are playing a kind of Multi in which you are allowed to pass. So saying that you cannot pass it is untrue. All that the EBU does is stating that if you say nothing else than "Multi", you are also saying that you cannot pass it. And I do agree that in the extreme case Alain mentioned (in which you can see in your hand that partner cannot possibly have a strong option), passing remains allowed. But that is an extreme case, not a "judgment" case. I still don't see the need for such a regulation, but once it's there, I understand it. And I'll call my Multi "Norwegian" when next playing in England. Which renders the regulation totally useless. But that's another matter entirely. Herman. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Nov 7 16:26:55 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:26:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <24120E1763354AE79413D0A2E456933D@Mildred> References: <24120E1763354AE79413D0A2E456933D@Mildred> Message-ID: <4AF591BF.6090807@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan Endicott] The regulation says "Responder *is expected to* explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener's Multi 2D." I would interpret expectation as requiring a partnership understanding. I do not see that it excludes an infrequent breach of the agreement when justified by the responding hand and bridge judgement. [Nige1] IMO, using a "judgement" interpretation of this regulation renders it toothless. What situation would the judgement version of this regulation address? Can you really claim to be enforcing this regulation when you allow a player to "use his judgement" to pass 2D, when game is available opposite *suitable weak types* as well as all strong types? I think that the trouble with "judgement" is that it varies so much. Especially when a player is rationalising a dubious action. There was a similar argument about using "judgement" to interpret the rule of 19 (4321 HCP + lengths of 2 longest suits add to at least 19). In my recollection, the gist of it was ... David Stevenson argued that it was "playing bridge" to open 1S on say: S:AT9876 H:KT987 D:xx C- Many would agree with Stevenson, in the absence of daft regulation. David Burn said opening such a hand flouted the regulation. He countered with reductio ad absurdum: if you may use "judgement" to upgrade such a hand, then you may also open 1S on say: S:85xx H:85x D:85x C:85x, arguing that, in your "judgement", the "85" combination is drasticaly undervalued by most players. I prefer Burn's literal interpretation of rules because the "judgement" interpretation seems over-dependent on players' and directors' subjective evaluation. This produces inconsistent rulings. A perception of unfairness results. It also licenses you to use similar "judgement", when interpreting any law or regulation that you don't like. If players may use judgement in this way, I feel that they should be informed. Because currently only a few directors can take advantage. Nevertheless, even "judgement" interpretations are preferable to the current ambiguity. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Nov 7 17:40:09 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:40:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <4AF5547D.2010100@skynet.be> References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF3E02E.10403@meteo.fr> <4AF3EC14.4030405@skynet.be> <4AF440A2.1030203@skynet.be> <2CFEF5DF631F4AECAB8B429E5F3DA94D@Mildred> <4AF5547D.2010100@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2009/11/7 Herman De Wael : > Grattan wrote: >> >>>> >>> Well Harald, the EBU regulation does precisely that. >>> Herman. >>> >> +=+ Is that really right? Allowing that the power is to >> regulate partnership understandings, how can it affect >> the exercise of bridge judgement if there is no agreement >> that the Multi may be passed? >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ?+=+ >> > > Well Grattan, it's just what you call judgment. If you explain that your > Multi cannot be passed, and you then pass it, is that judgment or lying? > I call it lying (in most cases). The fact that you pass means that you > are playing a kind of Multi in which you are allowed to pass. So saying > that you cannot pass it is untrue. > > All that the EBU does is stating that if you say nothing else than > "Multi", you are also saying that you cannot pass it. Where did this come from, Herman? What was said somewhere upthread is that you can't pass with a hand worth exploring game facing some strong option of the Multi. Noone said anything about passing being prohibited. And, frankly, it would be nonsense to disallow passing with a hand where 2D obviously is the best contract, even when partner holds the strong option. That wouldn't be playing bridge at all. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > And I do agree that in the extreme case Alain mentioned (in which you > can see in your hand that partner cannot possibly have a strong option), > passing remains allowed. But that is an extreme case, not a "judgment" case. > > I still don't see the need for such a regulation, but once it's there, I > understand it. And I'll call my Multi "Norwegian" when next playing in > England. Which renders the regulation totally useless. > ?But that's another matter entirely. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 7 17:57:22 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:57:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: <4AF591BF.6090807@yahoo.co.uk> References: <24120E1763354AE79413D0A2E456933D@Mildred> <4AF591BF.6090807@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:26:55 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Grattan Endicott] > The regulation says "Responder *is expected to* explore game > possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of > opener's Multi 2D." I would interpret expectation as requiring a > partnership understanding. I do not see that it excludes an infrequent > breach of the agreement when justified by the responding hand and bridge > judgement. > > [Nige1] > IMO, using a "judgement" interpretation of this regulation renders it > toothless. What situation would the judgement version of this regulation > address? Can you really claim to be enforcing this regulation when you > allow a player to "use his judgement" to pass 2D, when game is available > opposite *suitable weak types* as well as all strong types? > > I think that the trouble with "judgement" is that it varies so much. > Especially when a player is rationalising a dubious action. > > There was a similar argument about using "judgement" to interpret the > rule of 19 (4321 HCP + lengths of 2 longest suits add to at least 19). > > In my recollection, the gist of it was ... > > David Stevenson argued that it was "playing bridge" to open 1S on say: > S:AT9876 H:KT987 D:xx C- > > Many would agree with Stevenson, in the absence of daft regulation. > > David Burn said opening such a hand flouted the regulation. He countered > with reductio ad absurdum: if you may use "judgement" to upgrade such a > hand, then you may also open 1S on say: > S:85xx H:85x D:85x C:85x, > arguing that, in your "judgement", the "85" combination is drasticaly > undervalued by most players. I think as a director I can distinguish judgments from outright lies. 85 is not drastically undervalued. A supported 10 is worth about half of a point. (http://bridge.rfrick.info/halfpoints.htm) > > I prefer Burn's literal interpretation of rules because the "judgement" > interpretation seems over-dependent on players' and directors' > subjective evaluation. This produces inconsistent rulings. A perception > of unfairness results. > > It also licenses you to use similar "judgement", when interpreting any > law or regulation that you don't like. If players may use judgement in > this way, I feel that they should be informed. Because currently only a > few directors can take advantage. > > Nevertheless, even "judgement" interpretations are preferable to the > current ambiguity. If you are good at reading people, you probably can tell whether your partner has a really strong hand or a weak hand. It takes longer to count points in a strong hand, and he is liable to double-check his count. I would guess he places the bidding card down differently. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Nov 7 18:34:56 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:34:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas In-Reply-To: References: <4AF09EEE.8080100@virginmedia.com> <4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF3E02E.10403@meteo.fr> <4AF3EC14.4030405@skynet.be> <4AF440A2.1030203@skynet.be> <2CFEF5DF631F4AECAB8B429E5F3DA94D@Mildred> <4AF5547D.2010100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4AF5AFC0.3030100@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/11/7 Herman De Wael : >> Grattan wrote: >>>> Well Harald, the EBU regulation does precisely that. >>>> Herman. >>>> >>> +=+ Is that really right? Allowing that the power is to >>> regulate partnership understandings, how can it affect >>> the exercise of bridge judgement if there is no agreement >>> that the Multi may be passed? >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> Well Grattan, it's just what you call judgment. If you explain that your >> Multi cannot be passed, and you then pass it, is that judgment or lying? >> I call it lying (in most cases). The fact that you pass means that you >> are playing a kind of Multi in which you are allowed to pass. So saying >> that you cannot pass it is untrue. >> >> All that the EBU does is stating that if you say nothing else than >> "Multi", you are also saying that you cannot pass it. > > Where did this come from, Herman? > What was said somewhere upthread is that you can't pass with a hand > worth exploring game facing some strong option of the Multi. Noone > said anything about passing being prohibited. > Sorry, that was what I was led to believe was the regulation. Besides, this way, the regulation makes even less sense than it already does. "you are not allowed to pass unless you have a hand that is worth a pass". Nonsensical, right? > And, frankly, it would be nonsense to disallow passing with a hand > where 2D obviously is the best contract, even when partner holds the > strong option. That wouldn't be playing bridge at all. > Did anyone say this regulation had any bridge sense at all? Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 7 21:46:23 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 20:46:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] "Literal interpretation" Message-ID: <72A8DF344613457A87D03D2A80EF84C8@Mildred> Grattan Endicott<4AF22349.5040900@yahoo.co.uk> <4AF32348.4000808@yahoo.co.uk><4AF3E02E.10403@meteo.fr> <4AF3EC14.4030405@skynet.be> <4AF440A2.1030203@skynet.be><2CFEF5DF631F4AECAB8B429E5F3DA94D@Mildred> <4AF5547D.2010100@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] ils ne passeront pas > > All that the EBU does is stating that if you say nothing else than > "Multi", you are also saying that you cannot pass it. > +=+ We should look at the precise language. Does the regulation require a partnership understanding or does it require factual compliance in the auction? The regulation says "Responder *is expected to* explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener's Multi 2D." I interpret expectation as requiring a partnership understanding. I do not see that it excludes a breach of the agreement when justified on occasion by the responding hand and bridge judgement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Nov 7 23:51:13 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:51:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] LAs In-Reply-To: <4AF4B37A.5010009@aol.com> References: <4AF4B37A.5010009@aol.com> Message-ID: <4AF5F9E1.4020303@nhcc.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > There is absolutely no bridge logic to her play; totally irrational. My > suspicion is that, when on lead, she generally leads the third card from > the left in her hand. If this is the case, any card in her hand is a LA, as Robert pointed out. The real issue is "suggested over another." She'll be oblivious to most kinds of UI, but presumably "showed strong displeasure" will be enough to get her attention. I'm afraid you have to adjust the score to keep her partners from influencing her play. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 8 01:12:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:12:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] LAs References: <4AF4B37A.5010009@aol.com> <4AF5F9E1.4020303@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] LAs > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> There is absolutely no bridge logic to her play; totally irrational. My >> suspicion is that, when on lead, she generally leads the third card from >> the left in her hand. > > If this is the case, any card in her hand is a LA, as Robert pointed > out. The real issue is "suggested over another." She'll be oblivious > to most kinds of UI, but presumably "showed strong displeasure" will be > enough to get her attention. I'm afraid you have to adjust the score to > keep her partners from influencing her play. < +=+ The illogical alternative maybe? +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Nov 8 02:25:41 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:25:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] "Literal interpretation" In-Reply-To: <72A8DF344613457A87D03D2A80EF84C8@Mildred> References: <72A8DF344613457A87D03D2A80EF84C8@Mildred> Message-ID: <4AF61E15.5020704@yahoo.co.uk> Grattan Endicott +=+ Now a literal interpretation of: "Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener's Multi 2D." can hardly be said to demand that the 2D shall not be passed ever factually. Such a regulation would use more definite language, such as "must not" or "shall not". It would not say "is expected to". This delicate language does not close the door. [Nige1] A regulation saying "responder should explore game possibilities..." does not "close the door" any more than a regulation that states "responder is expected to explore game possibilities...". In neither case, can you prevent a player from facing his pass card. You can only rule after the event. The rule-makers "expect responder to explore game possibilities...". If that dopes not mean what it seems to mean, then what does it mean? The function of the regulation can't simply be to handicap naive players (like me) while leaving the more sophisticated insiders untramelled. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 8 11:43:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:43:50 -0000 Subject: [BLML] "Literal interpretation" References: <72A8DF344613457A87D03D2A80EF84C8@Mildred> <4AF61E15.5020704@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 1:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] "Literal interpretation" > > [Nige1] A regulation saying "responder should explore game possibilities..." does not "close the door" any more than a regulation that states "responder is expected to explore game possibilities...". In neither case, can you prevent a player from facing his pass card. You can only rule after the event. > The rule-makers "expect responder to explore game possibilities.". If that dopes not mean what it seems to mean, then what does it mean? The function of the regulation can't simply be to handicap naive players (like me) while leaving the more sophisticated insiders untramelled. > [Grattan] +=+ If the rule-makers were seeking an absolute requirement they had available "must explore" or "shall explore", or indeed more clumsily "may not do other than explore". If they had said "should explore" it would have signified that "failure to do so is an infraction jeopardizing the player's rights but not often penalized" - which is why I did not mention it. Instead they chose "is expected to explore", terminology untreated in the Introduction to the 2007 laws. We are left to interpret its effect. Certainly it indicates a course of action anticipated of the player as a rule, but it indicates nothing as to what ensues if the expectation is not met, and in particular if the player explains that he passed because he was fulfilling his overriding Law obligation to play "to obtain a better score than other contestants".(sic) +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Nov 8 23:21:53 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:21:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Warning; identity theft Message-ID: <4AF74481.5070906@aol.com> Hola! Recently some friends (including one from blml) have enquired about emails, supposedly from me, in which they were encouraged to join some obscure list (seemingly similar to facebook) so as to communicate with friends. Be aware that such emails are not from me and my recommendation is to ignore them. JE From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Nov 8 23:33:04 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:33:04 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Warning; identity theft References: <4AF74481.5070906@aol.com> Message-ID: <000501ca60c3$71fa9fe0$2401a8c0@p41600> Grassy ass. My familiarity with JE is Jackson Estate Sauvignon Blanc. If that's out to get me then I shall go willingly... lnb > Hola! Recently some friends (including one from blml) have enquired > about emails, supposedly from me, in which they were encouraged to join > some obscure list (seemingly similar to facebook) so as to communicate > with friends. Be aware that such emails are not from me and my > recommendation is to ignore them. JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 8 23:51:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:51:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9777889.1257512605732.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >The 5 card suit weak twos also make constructive bidding much >more difficult. There simply is not enough room to find out all of >o hearts or spades >o minimum or maximum >o 5card or six card suit >o much less any side values or singletons > >All of that does not necessarily mean that 5 card suit weak twos >are a net loss. "The food is totally inedible, so I vomit it all back up after eating. But at least they provide this inedible food frequently." Nigel Guthrie: >>...If you open a multi with a 5 or 6 card major then you more >>than double the frequency of the bid... Richard Hills: Not an argument in favour if the frequency of net loss of imps is also more than doubled. Last year the extremely frequent but aptly named "Donkey Twos" were briefly popular amongst some Canberra experts. 2D = 6-11 hcp, 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds 2H = 6-11 hcp, 4+ spades and 4+ hearts 2S = 6-11 hcp, 4+ spades and 4+ clubs While these Donkey Twos gained some bunny-bashing tops in local matchpoint pairs events, the local Canberra tournaments are heavily skewed towards imped teams events where Canberra experts play against each other. The winning strategy for the expert opponents of the Donkey Two- Bidders was to choose a conservative Pass on marginal hands, following the old-fashioned advice "when pre-empted, stay pre- empted". Sure enough, the tail was pinned all over the Donkey Twos, with their normal games missed, abnormal (and unsuccessful) games bid, and also the Donkey Two-Bidders pre-empting themselves out of their correct partscore. So now all Canberra experts have consigned Donkey Twos to the dustbin of history. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Nov 8 23:58:09 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:58:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <9777889.1257512605732.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0911081458i5d3765f2x604c7c6585ee3061@mail.gmail.com> > Last year the extremely frequent but aptly named "Donkey Twos" > were briefly popular amongst some Canberra experts. > > 2D = 6-11 hcp, 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds > 2H = 6-11 hcp, 4+ spades and 4+ hearts > 2S = 6-11 hcp, 4+ spades and 4+ clubs > > While these Donkey Twos gained some bunny-bashing tops in local > matchpoint pairs events, the local Canberra tournaments are > heavily skewed towards imped teams events where Canberra experts > play against each other. > > The winning strategy for the expert opponents of the Donkey Two- > Bidders was to choose a conservative Pass on marginal hands, > following the old-fashioned advice "when pre-empted, stay pre- > empted". > > Sure enough, the tail was pinned all over the Donkey Twos, with > their normal games missed, abnormal (and unsuccessful) games bid, > and also the Donkey Two-Bidders pre-empting themselves out of > their correct partscore. > > So now all Canberra experts have consigned Donkey Twos to the > dustbin of history. > Strange that the experience in Canberra is so different than that of the rest of the world where Ekrens style assumed fit methods have been used for years. Potentially, the experience in Canberra has little/nothing to do with the validity of the methods themselves and a lot to do with an isolated group of individuals following a fad... -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091108/5e966110/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 9 00:50:49 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 00:50:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0911081458i5d3765f2x604c7c6585ee3061@mail.gmail.com> References: <9777889.1257512605732.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2da24b8e0911081458i5d3765f2x604c7c6585ee3061@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701ca60ce$4ca6cdd0$e5f46970$@no> On Behalf Of richard willey > Strange that the experience in Canberra is so different than that of the rest of the world where Ekrens style assumed fit methods have been used for years.? Except that according to what I have heard Ekren ceased using Ekren's long time ago. (I cannot guarantee that the above information is correct, but Ekren's is very seldom seen in Norway these days) Regards Sven From bobpark at consolidated.net Mon Nov 9 01:22:00 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:22:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Warning; identity theft In-Reply-To: <4AF74481.5070906@aol.com> References: <4AF74481.5070906@aol.com> Message-ID: <4AF760A8.9060102@consolidated.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola! Recently some friends (including one from blml) have enquired > about emails, supposedly from me, in which they were encouraged to join > some obscure list (seemingly similar to facebook) so as to communicate > with friends. Be aware that such emails are not from me and my > recommendation is to ignore them. JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > Jeff--- Is the infoaxe message that came under you name really from you? --bp From Gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 9 02:22:22 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:22:22 EST Subject: [BLML] 57 varieties Message-ID: Declarer leads a plain-card from dummy. East is uncertain whether to ruff, but before he decides, West contributes a card to the trick, which East knows to be the highest card remaining in the suit. East discards a side suit, and benefits. The remedy prescribed by Law 57 is inadequate: He may: 1. require offender?s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or 2. require offender?s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or 3. forbid offender?s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer. And Law 59 very specifically states: A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required to comply with a rectification ... Now I agree that the player cannot be allowed to profit from the irregularity, and we therefore have to apply Law 16B or Law 23, but there is nothing in the Laws to indicate that these *override* Laws 57 and 59. Sven Pran indicates that this has been dealt with on director courses and it has been decided that they do, but surely it would be better to insert "require or" before "forbid" in 3. to ensure the right penalty is applied. Of course, someone will find a situation where a player will discard a high club or a high diamond if his partner is winning the trick, and a low club or a low diamond if his partner is not winning the trick, so maybe we need the draconian 3. forbid offender's partner to play either the highest or the lowest card of another suit specified by declarer, or 4. require offender's partner to play either the highest or the lowest card of another suit specified by declarer. That should sort 'em out. The other question I have on Law 57 is what happens if the declarer does not know whether the player is showing out; he is forced to guess whether to exercise 1, 2 or 3, and I presume he does not get two bites at the cherry, so if he exercises 1, and the player replies "I cannot follow", then he cannot choose 3 instead. Or can he? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 9 03:36:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:36:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Euathlus / Protagoras [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: 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." David Barton, February 2006: >>Let us suppose that West opens 1H with dealer being >>North. North declines to accept this bid and then bids >>1H himself. Among the North-South agreements is that a >>bid in a suit known to be held by opponents is a >>Michaels cue bid showing 5-5 in spades and a minor (in >>the case of hearts). Richard Hills, February 2006: >If North-South also have an agreement that an opening >bid of 1H as dealer shows 5+ hearts, then there is an >inconsistency in the North-South agreements. Roy Sorensen, A Brief History of the Paradox, pp 62-63: "Lawyers sued lawyers. Law students sued their teachers. Teachers sued students: Euathlus had contracted to pay Protagoras for his lessons when he had won his first case. After completing his studies, Euathlus never went to court. Determined to collect his fee, Protagoras threatened to sue. He pointed out that if he sued Euathlus, then Euathlus would be obliged to pay either way. If Protagoras won the suit, then Euathlus would be obliged to pay because that is what the court ordered. If Protagoras lost, then Euathlus would have won his first case and so would have to pay by virtue of his contract. "However, Euathlus had learned his lessons well. Euathlus countered that if he won, then, in accordance with the court's decision, he owes nothing to Protagoras. If Euathlus loses, then he has yet to win his first case and so is still under no obligation to pay." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 9 04:08:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:08:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 57 varieties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Maurice Drake, advertising executive, circa 1967: "Beanz meanz Heinz." Paul Lamford: >Declarer leads a plain-card from dummy. East is uncertain whether to >ruff, but before he decides, West contributes a card to the trick, which >East knows to be the highest card remaining in the suit. East discards a >side suit, and benefits. > >The remedy prescribed by Law 57 is inadequate: [big snip] Richard Hills: But the indemnity restored by Law 12A1 is fully adequate, obviating any need to draconianly rewrite Law 57 in the 2018 edition of the Laws. Law 12A1: "On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86). This includes: The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide **indemnity** to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." What's the problem? Oops, Law 12B2 is the problem. Law 12B2: "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the **rectification** provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." However..... "Rectification" and "indemnity" are not synonyms. 2007 Definitions: "Rectification - the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention." And since "indemnity" is absent from the 2007 Definitions, it takes on its dictionary meaning. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "indemnity n., security against damage or loss, compensation" Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 9 05:49:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:49:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Etceteras of a regulation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, 10th February 2006, unverified thought experiment: [snip] >>>>In the past, too much consideration has been given to providing job- >>>>interest for directors. [snip] Ed Reppert, 10th February, 2006 >>>I believe, Nigel, that this is neither fair nor accurate. Nigel Guthrie, 11th February 2006, unverified thought experiment: >I've argued this view in previous postings. (Most law-makers are >directors. They consult the views of few players who aren't directors. >In my experience, directors express more approval than players for the >fragmented, sophisticated and subjective laws. There are germane >analogies with other legislative contexts. And so on). Richard Hills, 9th November 2007: In my experience??? A man who has swum at Sydney's Bondi Beach for the past forty years has had vast experience of that beach, but he misapplies that vast experience to claim that global warming is not occurring, since he has not noticed any significant erosion of the beach during those four decades. Wikipedia, 9th November 2007, on "Confirmation bias": "In one experiment, subjects had to distinguish between real and fake suicide notes. They were given feedback at random, some being told they had done well on this task and some being told they were bad at it. Even after being fully debriefed, subjects were still influenced by the feedback. They still thought they were better or worse than average at that kind of task, depending on what they had initially been told." William ("Kojak") Schoder, 10th February 2006: >>But, you have to understand that there are those who can't pass up the >>opportunity to blare out their biases, as stupid as his remark is. >> >>Kojak Nigel Guthrie, 11th February 2006, verified witty (tu quoque) repartee: >Kojak cannot claim a monopoly. Even Ed and I must be allowed to blare >out the occasional stupid remark :) Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 08:51:51 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:51:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701ca60ce$4ca6cdd0$e5f46970$@no> References: <9777889.1257512605732.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2da24b8e0911081458i5d3765f2x604c7c6585ee3061@mail.gmail.com> <000701ca60ce$4ca6cdd0$e5f46970$@no> Message-ID: 2009/11/9 Sven Pran : > On Behalf Of richard willey > >> Strange that the experience in Canberra is so different than that of the > rest of the world where Ekrens style assumed fit methods have been used for > years. > > Except that according to what I have heard Ekren ceased using Ekren's long > time ago. > (I cannot guarantee that the above information is correct, but Ekren's is > very seldom seen in Norway these days) That's true. Ekren quitted using his convention years ago, as did most Norwegian experts. The experience here was exactly the same as Richard reports from Canberra. It's in general (extremely) easy to defend against, and a long time losing weapon in your arsenal. Of course, when the Ekren partnership finds a great fit, it's harder to defend against. But that's not very frequent. > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 08:57:29 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:57:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 57 varieties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/11/9 : > Declarer leads a plain-card from dummy. East is ?uncertain whether to ruff, > but before he decides, West contributes a card to the ?trick, which East > knows to be the highest card remaining in the suit. East ?discards a side > suit, and benefits. > > The remedy prescribed by Law 57 is ?inadequate: > > He may: > 1. require offender?s partner to play the highest ?card he holds of the > suit led, or > 2. require offender?s partner to play the ?lowest card he holds of the suit > led, or > 3. forbid offender?s partner to play ?a card of another suit specified by > declarer. > > And Law 59 very specifically states: > A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play > as > required to comply with a rectification ... > > Now I agree that the player cannot be allowed to profit from the > irregularity, and we therefore have to apply Law 16B or Law 23, but there is ?nothing > in the Laws to indicate that these *override* Laws 57 and 59. Sven Pran > indicates that this has been dealt with on director courses and it has been > decided that they do, but surely it would be better to insert "require or" > before "forbid" in 3. to ensure the right penalty is applied. Of course, > someone ?will find a situation where a player will discard a high club or a high > diamond ?if his partner is winning the trick, and a low club or a low > diamond if his ?partner is not winning the trick, so maybe we need the draconian > > 3. forbid offender's partner to play either the highest or the lowest card > of another suit specified by declarer, or > > 4. require offender's partner to play either the highest or the lowest card > ?of another suit specified by declarer. I think your draconian suggestions above are too..... draconian.:-) I believe that the L57 is just what it should be, and that it's come to be like this after very thoughtful deliberations by the WBF LC. > > That should sort 'em out. The other question I have on Law 57 is what > happens if the declarer does not know whether the player is showing out; he is > forced to guess whether to exercise 1, 2 or 3, and I presume he does not get > two ?bites at the cherry, so if he exercises 1, and the player replies "I > cannot ?follow", then he cannot choose 3 instead. Or can he? He doesn't get to bits of the cherry. If declarer guesses wrong, the opponent can play whatever legal card he wants. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From roger-eymard at orange.fr Mon Nov 9 10:27:25 2009 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:27:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <9777889.1257512605732.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net><2da24b8e0911081458i5d3765f2x604c7c6585ee3061@mail.gmail.com><000701ca60ce$4ca6cdd0$e5f46970$@no> Message-ID: <80F03959835843EEBCE8A99C7A15278D@magnifique> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 2009/11/9 Sven Pran : >> On Behalf Of richard willey >> >>> Strange that the experience in Canberra is so different than that of the >> rest of the world where Ekrens style assumed fit methods have been used >> for >> years. >> >> Except that according to what I have heard Ekren ceased using Ekren's >> long >> time ago. >> (I cannot guarantee that the above information is correct, but Ekren's is >> very seldom seen in Norway these days) > > That's true. Ekren quitted using his convention years ago, as did most > Norwegian experts. The experience here was exactly the same as Richard > reports from Canberra. It's in general (extremely) easy to defend > against, and a long time losing weapon in your arsenal. Of course, > when the Ekren partnership finds a great fit, it's harder to defend > against. But that's not very frequent. > >> >> Regards Sven >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > So, why did about 25% of the pairs competing during last Bermuda Bowl use some kind of Ekren's ? http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/docdefault.asp?page=bermudabowl&start=c%3A%5Cinetpub%5Cwwwroot%5Cecatsbridge%5Cdocuments%5Cfiles%5C2009Brazil%2FSystems Regards Roger From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Mon Nov 9 10:34:06 2009 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:34:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 57 varieties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57EF2BE4D2354014AB636D8BDE76F89B@PCdeOlivier> Hi L23 is the answer, West could have known when he played OOT that it could be ... it doesn't override L57 but come after, Est play a "non something" card and after TD can give an AS if he thinks Est could have ruffed without the play OOT, Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 57 varieties > Declarer leads a plain-card from dummy. East is uncertain whether to > ruff, > but before he decides, West contributes a card to the trick, which East > knows to be the highest card remaining in the suit. East discards a side > suit, and benefits. > > The remedy prescribed by Law 57 is inadequate: > > He may: > 1. require offender?s partner to play the highest card he holds of the > suit led, or > 2. require offender?s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the > suit > led, or > 3. forbid offender?s partner to play a card of another suit specified by > declarer. > > And Law 59 very specifically states: > A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play > as > required to comply with a rectification ... > > Now I agree that the player cannot be allowed to profit from the > irregularity, and we therefore have to apply Law 16B or Law 23, but there > is nothing > in the Laws to indicate that these *override* Laws 57 and 59. Sven Pran > indicates that this has been dealt with on director courses and it has > been > decided that they do, but surely it would be better to insert "require or" > before "forbid" in 3. to ensure the right penalty is applied. Of course, > someone will find a situation where a player will discard a high club or > a high > diamond if his partner is winning the trick, and a low club or a low > diamond if his partner is not winning the trick, so maybe we need the > draconian > > 3. forbid offender's partner to play either the highest or the lowest card > of another suit specified by declarer, or > > 4. require offender's partner to play either the highest or the lowest > card > of another suit specified by declarer. > > That should sort 'em out. The other question I have on Law 57 is what > happens if the declarer does not know whether the player is showing out; > he is > forced to guess whether to exercise 1, 2 or 3, and I presume he does not > get > two bites at the cherry, so if he exercises 1, and the player replies "I > cannot follow", then he cannot choose 3 instead. Or can he? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 9 10:33:25 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:33:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <80F03959835843EEBCE8A99C7A15278D@magnifique> References: <9777889.1257512605732.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net><2da24b8e0911081458i5d3765f2x604c7c6585ee3061@mail.gmail.com><000701ca60ce$4ca6cdd0$e5f46970$@no> <80F03959835843EEBCE8A99C7A15278D@magnifique> Message-ID: <4AF7E1E5.9050103@skynet.be> Roger Eymard wrote: >> > > So, why did about 25% of the pairs competing during last Bermuda Bowl > use some kind of Ekren's ? > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/docdefault.asp?page=bermudabowl&start=c%3A%5Cinetpub%5Cwwwroot%5Cecatsbridge%5Cdocuments%5Cfiles%5C2009Brazil%2FSystems > > > Regards > > Roger > > Possibly because they have not yet shared in the Australian and Norwegian experience that it costs more than it brings in? Herman. From jmmgc1 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 9 10:38:25 2009 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?Sm9z6SBNaWd1ZWw=?= ) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:38:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] LAs References: <4AF4B37A.5010009@aol.com> <90CBD6F2F1324095BAD27D816DF36627@Mildred> Message-ID: And we don't like this so tedious work... -------Original Message------- From: Grattan Date: 07/11/2009 11:27:28 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] LAs Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 1:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] LAs (But since she is attractive and otherwise charming she has no problem finding (generally male) partners.) >> +=+ Nor, I imagine, do generally male Directors find it tedious to be summoned regularly to her table. +=+ _______________________________________________ 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/20091109/a02077d7/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 7162 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091109/a02077d7/attachment-0001.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 46417 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091109/a02077d7/attachment-0001.gif From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 9 11:30:30 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:30:30 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 57 varieties References: <57EF2BE4D2354014AB636D8BDE76F89B@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <932372F184BD4EEA9BD01C0EAF34177F@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 57 varieties > L23 is the answer, >> From: To: Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 57 varieties > Declarer leads a plain-card from dummy. East is uncertain whether to ruff, but before he decides, West contributes a card to the trick, which East knows to be the highest card remaining in the suit. East discards a side suit, and benefits. >> From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 9 11:41:55 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:41:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] LAs References: <4AF4B37A.5010009@aol.com> <90CBD6F2F1324095BAD27D816DF36627@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 1:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] LAs (But since she is attractive and otherwise charming she has no problem finding (generally male) partners.) >> +=+ Nor, I imagine, do generally male Directors find it tedious to be summoned regularly to her table. +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 12:59:35 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:59:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF7E1E5.9050103@skynet.be> References: <9777889.1257512605732.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2da24b8e0911081458i5d3765f2x604c7c6585ee3061@mail.gmail.com> <000701ca60ce$4ca6cdd0$e5f46970$@no> <80F03959835843EEBCE8A99C7A15278D@magnifique> <4AF7E1E5.9050103@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2009/11/9 Herman De Wael : > > > Roger Eymard wrote: >>> >> >> So, why did about 25% of the pairs competing during last Bermuda Bowl >> use some kind of Ekren's ? >> http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/docdefault.asp?page=bermudabowl&start=c%3A%5Cinetpub%5Cwwwroot%5Cecatsbridge%5Cdocuments%5Cfiles%5C2009Brazil%2FSystems >> >> >> Regards >> >> Roger >> >> > Possibly because they have not yet shared in the Australian and > Norwegian experience that it costs more than it brings in? Or they use a more conservative approach when using the convention, avoiding the wide range of hands most Norwegians used. Which is a problem for responder when deciding his action. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 9 15:20:08 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:20:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <001201ca5f30$22d84c30$6888e490$@no> References: <4AE1ED61.4010409@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AF39217.9070205@nhcc.net> <5F7763C1-5F0E-47D2-86A4-CBFB3456E761@starpower.net> <001201ca5f30$22d84c30$6888e490$@no> Message-ID: <8076B21E-AF23-4D41-A3A1-60688ECAA057@starpower.net> On Nov 6, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >>> The one exception to not disclosing future calls is if the RA >>> requires >>> those calls to be on the system card. Blackwood response fall into >>> that category. If, however, you play some really weird intervention >>> over Blackwood, you can't expect pairs to put their agreements about >>> what they do then on the SC. A more practical example might be >>> 2C(strong)-P-2D, where 2D is normally a negative and is on the SC as >>> such, but 2D might be something else if the intervening pass has a >>> weird meaning. JFTR, those were Steve Willner's words, not mine. I do not agree with them; see my rebuttal posted on 11/6. > Not exactly. > > If a partnership wants to have two (or more) different versions of > Blackwood > available depending on opponents' agreement for call(s) on lower > level they > are perfectly free to have such agreement on their Blackwood. (This > agreement must of course be declared.) Opponents may not vary their > agreements for calls on a lower level depending on which version of > Blackwood they decide to use. > > The same principle applies in general for all calls, the agreement > on a call > that will occur before another call must be declared before > opponents need > to declare the agreement on the later call if this agreement > depends on the > first agreement. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Nov 9 15:50:43 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:50:43 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Etceteras of a regulation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF82C43.4070000@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills quotes a 2006 posting of mine, repeatedly dubbing it an "unverified thought experiment"] [Nigel Guthrie 2006] In the past, too much consideration has been given to providing job-interest for directors. [Ed Reppert, 10th February, 2006] I believe, Nigel, that this is neither fair nor accurate. [Nigel Guthrie, 11th February 2006] I've argued this view in previous postings. (Most law-makers are directors. They consult the views of few players who aren't directors. In my experience, directors express more approval than players for the fragmented, sophisticated and subjective laws. There are germane analogies with other legislative contexts. And so on). [Richard Hills, 9th November 2007] In my experience??? A man who has swum at Sydney's Bondi Beach for the past forty years has had vast experience of that beach, but he misapplies that vast experience to claim that global warming is not occurring, since he has not noticed any significant erosion of the beach during those four decades. [Wikipedia, 9th November 2007, on "Confirmation bias"] "In one experiment, subjects had to distinguish between real and fake suicide notes. They were given feedback at random, some being told they had done well on this task and some being told they were bad at it. Even after being fully debriefed, subjects were still influenced by the feedback. They still thought they were better or worse than average at that kind of task, depending on what they had initially been told." [Nige2] Perhaps the subjects were naive to place blind trust in officials. Richard could be right that there's a lesson here for Bridge-players :) [William ("Kojak") Schoder, 10th February 2006] But, you have to understand that there are those who can't pass up the opportunity to blare out their biases, as stupid as his remark is. [Nigel Guthrie, 11th February 2006, verified witty (tu quoque)] Kojak cannot claim a monopoly. Even Ed and I must be allowed to blare out the occasional stupid remark :) [Nigel] What Richard calls "unverified thought experiments" I prefer to call opinions based on experience (And I clearly distinguish what I regard as fact, from mere opinion). I would substantiate my views with more data, if I could. It would be relatively easy for Local legislatures and the WBF to gather and collate relevant collect data. The EBU made a welcome start, by conducting a player-poll on some aspects of local regulation. My feeling about law *as a whole* is that, whatever its original motivation, most law is written by and for lawyers. Obvious examples are British libel law and copyright laws for genes and software. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Nov 9 15:52:50 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:52:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Warning; identity theft In-Reply-To: <4AF760A8.9060102@consolidated.net> References: <4AF74481.5070906@aol.com> <4AF760A8.9060102@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <4AF82CC2.9000401@aol.com> Hola Robert! No, not from me, ignore it. JE Robert Park schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Hola! Recently some friends (including one from blml) have enquired >> about emails, supposedly from me, in which they were encouraged to join >> some obscure list (seemingly similar to facebook) so as to communicate >> with friends. Be aware that such emails are not from me and my >> recommendation is to ignore them. JE >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > Jeff--- Is the infoaxe message that came under you name really from you? > --bp > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Mon Nov 9 16:58:17 2009 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:58:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Warning; identity theft In-Reply-To: <4AF82CC2.9000401@aol.com> References: <4AF74481.5070906@aol.com> <4AF760A8.9060102@consolidated.net> <4AF82CC2.9000401@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001ca6155$754326d0$5fc97470$@com> Hi all, Back to the list. Be aware of this Jeff and ask somebody, if you cannot, checking why your are sending emails without knowing. Sometimes ago I realized that my computer was under the control of somebody else every Friday night receiving messages like "Your email to somebody in Tokyo (or elsewhere around the world) was not delivered". I had much trouble using my computer at that time and more trouble solving this problem despite the fact I had all protection you can imagine. Laval Du Breuil Quebec -----Message d'origine----- De?: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Jeff Easterson Envoy??: 9 novembre 2009 09:53 ??: Bridge Laws Mailing List Objet?: Re: [BLML] Warning; identity theft Hola Robert! No, not from me, ignore it. JE Robert Park schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Hola! Recently some friends (including one from blml) have enquired >> about emails, supposedly from me, in which they were encouraged to join >> some obscure list (seemingly similar to facebook) so as to communicate >> with friends. Be aware that such emails are not from me and my >> recommendation is to ignore them. JE >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > Jeff--- Is the infoaxe message that came under you name really from you? > --bp > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 9 19:31:11 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:31:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The Etceteras of a Regulation Message-ID: <051C27EEB3AC48778342C852B0EFC616@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <4AF74481.5070906@aol.com> <4AF760A8.9060102@consolidated.net> <4AF82CC2.9000401@aol.com> <000001ca6155$754326d0$5fc97470$@com> Message-ID: <000001ca6170$a64f3280$f2ed9780$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of laval > dubreuil > Sent: 9. november 2009 16:58 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Warning; identity theft > > Hi all, > Back to the list. > > Be aware of this Jeff and ask somebody, if you cannot, checking why your are > sending emails without knowing. > > Sometimes ago I realized that my computer was under the control of somebody > else every Friday night receiving messages like "Your email to somebody in Tokyo > (or elsewhere around the world) was not delivered". I had much trouble using my > computer at that time and more trouble solving this problem despite the fact I had > all protection you can imagine. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec This could be serious, but not necessarily the way you seem to fear. I have had feedbacks about delivery errors on messages apparently sent by me, and even had complaints from my ISP. However, I was really not much worried because I knew that I had (and have) a "watertight" system with practically no chance for any malware to get into my computer. And a little investigation soon revealed that the IP addresses from which those messages had been sent had nothing to do with me. The true fact is that it is very easy to fake a sender's address and have an email appear to come from somebody completely uninvolved. This happens all the time. Now, please do not take me as recommending to ignore symptoms on something bad going on, such symptoms must absolutely be taken seriously, but there is usually little reason for immediate panic provided you have the normally recommended protection systems operating on your computer. I shall only add one recommendation that I surprisingly almost never see issued: Never operate your computer logged on with administrator rights unless you absolutely have to! (And with Windows Vista you never have to, you can always authorize an individual task when needed.) Regards Sven. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 9 21:50:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:50:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic bidding theory (was ils) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <80F03959835843EEBCE8A99C7A15278D@magnifique> Message-ID: Roger Eymard: >So, why did about 25% of the pairs competing during last Bermuda Bowl >use some kind of Ekren's? Richard Hills: Perhaps because they could not use the more effective Brown Sticker Twos -- which are way too complex for the qualifying rounds of a World Championship -- despite Brown Sticker Twos being used and enjoyed by both experts and also Little Old Ladies in Canberra Bridge Club events. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 9 22:07:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:07:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Etceteras of a regulation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF82C43.4070000@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder, 14th February 2006: [snip] >Or, have we now arrived at the exotic place where you can say anything >you want about anything, and if you say it loud and often enough, it >will become reality? > >Don't answer - my delete key is spring loaded. > >Kojak Nigel Guthrie, 10th November 2009: [snip] What Richard calls "unverified thought experiments" I prefer to call opinions based on experience (And I clearly distinguish what I regard as fact, from mere opinion). I would substantiate my views with more data, if I could. [snip] In "A Study in Scarlet", Sherlock Holmes said: "It is a capital mistake to theorise before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgement." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 9 23:53:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:53:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Pitiful [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th September 2009, item 9: "The committee discussed the state of the On-line Laws. The WBF On-line Laws provide a 'default' code where needed. When licensing on-line games authorities may include a condition imposing a set of laws. The committee, bearing in mind proposals for a WBF On- line Championship, recommends that the On-line Laws be revisited with regard to the provisions of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge." Brian Meadows, 6th March 2006: The WBF's attempt at a code of Laws for online bridge was both one of the funniest and also the most pitiful things I have ever read. If it were not for the fact that I know Bill Segraves was involved (although I have no idea as to the extent of his involvement) then I would seriously doubt whether any of the people responsible for the document had ever played online bridge in their lives. I joined OKbridge in February of 1995, shortly after OKBridge first became available to those without access to a Unix shell account, and I then switched to Bridge Base Online in March of 2003, so I think I can say that I've seen a fair amount of the development of online bridge. If anyone can be bothered wading through all the irrelevant bumph in the online laws, e.g. dealing with shuffling the deck, assignment of seats, bidding or playing out of turn, etc, etc (and in my view, not 1 in 100 online players will do so) then they're left with a collection of laws, many of which bear no resemblance to how online bridge is actually played. Just a few examples are those governing disputed claims, retraction of bids and plays, bidding reviews, defences to opponents' system, and more besides. If you took a statistically significant number of online players, selected at random, my bet would be that at least 90% of them wouldn't even know there was a set of WBF laws governing online play (as opposed to the rules of whichever site they play on), and that at least 90% of the remainder would consider them largely irrelevant. No doubt those responsible for programming the online games will still attempt to make the game "recognisably bridge", but as far as my experience of OKBridge and BBO is concerned, it appears that those sites intend to take fullest advantage of the benefits available from the online environment, and to hell with what the WBF thinks about the matter. Brian. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Nov 10 02:05:38 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:05:38 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Etceteras of a regulation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF8BC62.4030904@yahoo.co.uk> [richard.hills] In "A Study in Scarlet" by Sherlock Holmes said: "It is a capital mistake to theorise before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgement." [Nigel] If Scientists had to wait for all the evidence, there would be no Science :( From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 10 02:19:54 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:19:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Etceteras of a regulation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AF8BC62.4030904@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4AF8BC62.4030904@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <000201ca61a3$e8dc84d0$ba958e70$@no> On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: 10. november 2009 02:06 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] The Etceteras of a regulation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [richard.hills] > In "A Study in Scarlet" by Sherlock Holmes said: "It is a capital mistake to theorise > before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgement." > > [Nigel] > If Scientists had to wait for all the evidence, there would be no Science :( That is precisely the difference between investigation and research From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Nov 10 05:04:39 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:04:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Warning; identity theft In-Reply-To: <000001ca6155$754326d0$5fc97470$@com> References: <4AF74481.5070906@aol.com> <4AF760A8.9060102@consolidated.net><4AF82CC2.9000401@aol.com> <000001ca6155$754326d0$5fc97470$@com> Message-ID: <4F8C46F028FB4C5F8CC8AE9005FE82F5@erdos> Usually, this is not an indication of computer problems on your own computer. Many spam programs will pick both a sender and a recipient from the victim's address book, making it more likely that the recipient will recognize the sender and open the spam. If the recipient's address is invalid, some systems bounce the mail back to the address listed as the sender, leading to the "undeliverable" message. ----- Original Message ----- From: "laval dubreuil" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Warning; identity theft Hi all, Back to the list. Be aware of this Jeff and ask somebody, if you cannot, checking why your are sending emails without knowing. Sometimes ago I realized that my computer was under the control of somebody else every Friday night receiving messages like "Your email to somebody in Tokyo (or elsewhere around the world) was not delivered". I had much trouble using my computer at that time and more trouble solving this problem despite the fact I had all protection you can imagine. Laval Du Breuil Quebec -----Message d'origine----- De : blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Jeff Easterson Envoy? : 9 novembre 2009 09:53 ? : Bridge Laws Mailing List Objet : Re: [BLML] Warning; identity theft Hola Robert! No, not from me, ignore it. JE Robert Park schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Hola! Recently some friends (including one from blml) have enquired >> about emails, supposedly from me, in which they were encouraged to join >> some obscure list (seemingly similar to facebook) so as to communicate >> with friends. Be aware that such emails are not from me and my >> recommendation is to ignore them. JE >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > Jeff--- Is the infoaxe message that came under you name really from you? > --bp > _______________________________________________ > 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 10 05:35:38 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:35:38 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Non-NABC+ Appeals in Washington DC Message-ID: <07A3D90C5F14431998C2590FE5D7FB7F@MARVLAPTOP> Case 15 N/S vul East dlr North AQ53 42 KJ654 J3 West East J42 9 K953 AJ8 Q73 AT8 Q74 AK9852 South K10876 Q1076 92 106 West North East South -- -- 1C Pass 1H 1NT* 2C 2S Pass Pass 3C 3S Pass** Pass 4C Pass Pass Pass * Spades and diamonds ** Alleged break in tempo Opening lead 9D, made 4, E/W +130 The facts: The director was called after the play of the hand. North thought the BIT was 7-10 seconds, South 7 seconds, West 2 seconds, and East did not notice one. Both pairs vehemently held to their opinions. The Ruling: The director determined that there was a BIT because after bidding clubs three times it would have been difficult to bid clubs yet again in the absence of a BIT. The BIT demonstrably suggested bidding again and pass was judged to be a logical alternative. The result was adjusted to 3S by South down one, N/S -100 for both sides. Laws 16 and 12C1(e) The Decision: The committee needed to determine whether or not a hesiation occurred. While it is true that the 4C call by East was unusual in this auction, there were other factors in the hand which suggested that a BIT had not occurred. The timing of the Director call was unusual. N/S made no statement at the time of the alleged infraction, such as 'Do you agree there was a BIT?' N/S did not call when 4S was bid. N/S did not call when dummy hit (revealing a fit with little spade wastage), but waited until completetion of the hand when 4S was made.Also, N/S's suggestion that the other two calls by West were instantaneous compared to the third call made it seem likely that the actual duration was about 2-3 seconds, seeming longer in contrast. The committee felt that this did not rise to the level of "an unmistakable hesitation" as required by law. Therefore, the table result of 4C by East making four, E/W +130, was restored by both sides. The Committee: Mark Itabashi (Chair) Tom Carmichael and Chris Moll. For starters, a TD is in the best position for deciding on BITs, and an AC should not change that opinion without good cause. Looking at both the East and West hands, the likelihood of a BIT seems very high and the TD's opinion should have prevailed. The timing of the Director call was unusual? But the end of play is the proper time for doing that, per Law 16B3: ...."he should summon the Director when play ends." There is nothing wrong with waiting until damage is obvious to call the Director, in fact it is good policy. It certainly did not "suggest that a bit had not occurred." "N/S made no statement at the time of the alleged infraction, such as 'Do you agree there was a BIT?'" L16B2 says a player who perceives UI *may* say something about it at the time, but it is not required. Nor is there any suggestion that any "agreement" should be sought. 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. That's *the opponents*, not the side commenting on the UI. The ACBL has not chosen to either forbid or require a TD call at this time, so it is optional with the player. I will suggest to Mark that he get a copy of the Laws next time I see him. . From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 10 07:19:22 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:19:22 -0700 Subject: [BLML] NABC+ Appeal 15 in Washington DC Message-ID: NABC+ Case 15 Subject UI N/S vul East dlr North AQ53 42 KJ654 J3 West East J42 9 K953 AJ8 Q73 AT8 Q74 AK9852 South K10876 Q1076 92 106 West North East South -- -- 1C Pass 1H 1NT* 2C 2S Pass Pass 3C 3S Pass** Pass 4C Pass Pass Pass * Spades and diamonds ** Alleged break in tempo Opening lead 9D, 4C made 4, E/W +130 The facts: The director was called after the play of the hand. North thought the BIT was 7-10 seconds, South 7 seconds, West 2 seconds, and East did not notice one. Both pairs vehemently held to their opinions. The Ruling: The director determined that there was a BIT because after bidding clubs three times it would have been difficult to bid clubs yet again in the absence of a BIT. The BIT demonstrably suggested bidding again and pass was judged to be a logical alternative. The result was adjusted to 3S by South down one, N/S -100 for both sides. Laws 16 and 12C1(e) E-W appealed this ruling. The Decision: The committee needed to determine whether or not a hesiation occurred. While it is true that the 4C call by East was unusual in this auction, there were other factors in the hand which suggested that a BIT had not occurred. The timing of the Director call was unusual. N/S made no statement at the time of the alleged infraction, such as 'Do you agree there was a BIT?' N/S did not call when 4S was bid. N/S did not call when dummy hit (revealing a fit with little spade wastage), but waited until completetion of the hand when 4S was made.Also, N/S's suggestion that the other two calls by West were instantaneous compared to the third call made it seem likely that the actual duration was about 2-3 seconds, seeming longer in contrast. The committee felt that this did not rise to the level of "an unmistakable hesitation" as required by law. Therefore, the table result of 4C by East making four, E/W +130, was restored by both sides. The Committee: Mark Itabashi (Chair) Tom Carmichael and Chris Moll. For starters, TDs are in the best position for deciding on BITs, and an AC should not change their opinion without good cause. Looking at both the East and West hands, the likelihood of a BIT seems very high and the TD's opinion should have prevailed. The timing of the Director call was unusual? But the end of play is the proper time for doing that, per Law 16B3: "....he should summon the Director when play ends." There is nothing wrong with waiting until damage is obvious to call the Director, in fact it is good policy. In this case it certainly did not "suggest that a BIT had not occurred." "N/S made no statement at the time of the alleged infraction, such as 'Do you agree there was a BIT?'" 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. That's *the opponents*, not the side commenting on the UI. The ACBL has not elected to require a TD call at this time by the latter, as it did in the 1997 Laws. The "may announce" wording means that it is optional for the player. There is no requirement that "agreement" be reached, and in fact that is not desirable because it can lead to acrimonious exchanges. And what "alleged infraction" is the AC talking about? Creation of UI is not an infraction, shouldn't an AC know that? I'll suggest to Mark that he get a copy of the new Laws next time I see him. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com . From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 10 10:04:54 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:04:54 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Non-NABC+ Appeals in Washington DC References: <07A3D90C5F14431998C2590FE5D7FB7F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:35 AM Subject: [BLML] Non-NABC+ Appeals in Washington DC > Case 15 N/S vul East dlr > > North > AQ53 > 42 > KJ654 > J3 > West East > J42 9 > K953 AJ8 > Q73 AT8 > Q74 AK9852 > South > K10876 > Q1076 > 92 > 106 > > West North East South > -- -- 1C Pass > 1H 1NT* 2C 2S > Pass Pass 3C 3S > Pass** Pass 4C Pass > Pass Pass > > * Spades and diamonds > ** Alleged break in tempo > > Opening lead 9D, made 4, E/W +130 > > The facts: The director was called after the play of the hand. North > thought the BIT was 7-10 seconds, South 7 seconds, West 2 seconds, > and East did not notice one. Both pairs vehemently held to their > opinions. > > The Ruling: > > The director determined that there was a BIT because after bidding > clubs three times it would have been difficult to bid clubs yet > again in the absence of a BIT. The BIT demonstrably suggested > bidding again and pass was judged to be a logical alternative. The > result was adjusted to 3S by South down one, N/S -100 for both > sides. Laws 16 and 12C1(e) > > The Decision: > > The committee needed to determine whether or not a hesiation > occurred. While it is true that the 4C call by East was unusual in > this auction, there were other factors in the hand which suggested > that a BIT had not occurred. The timing of the Director call was > unusual. N/S made no statement at the time of the alleged > infraction, such as 'Do you agree there was a BIT?' N/S did not call > when 4S was bid. N/S did not call when dummy hit (revealing a fit > with little spade wastage), but waited until completetion of the > hand when 4S was made.Also, N/S's suggestion that the other two > calls by West were instantaneous compared to the third call made it > seem likely that the actual duration was about 2-3 seconds, seeming > longer in contrast. The committee felt that this did not rise to > the level of "an unmistakable hesitation" as required by law. > Therefore, the table result of 4C by East making four, E/W +130, was > restored by both sides. > > The Committee: Mark Itabashi (Chair) Tom Carmichael and Chris Moll. > > For starters, a TD is in the best position for deciding on BITs, and > an AC should not change that opinion without good cause. Looking at > both the East and West hands, the likelihood of a BIT seems very > high and the TD's opinion should have prevailed. > > The timing of the Director call was unusual? But the end of play is > the proper time for doing that, per Law 16B3: ...."he should summon > the Director when play ends." There is nothing wrong with waiting > until damage is obvious to call the Director, in fact it is good > policy. It certainly did not "suggest that a bit had not occurred." > > "N/S made no statement at the time of the alleged infraction, such > as 'Do you agree there was a BIT?'" L16B2 says a player who > perceives UI *may* say something about it at the time, but it is not > required. Nor is there any suggestion that any "agreement" should > be sought. > > 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. > > That's *the opponents*, not the side commenting on the UI. The ACBL > has not chosen to either forbid or require a TD call at this time, > so it is optional with the player. > > I will suggest to Mark that he get a copy of the Laws next time I > see him. > +=+ I think the AC has every right to take the view it did - i.e. "The committee felt that this did not rise to the level of 'an unmistakable hesitation'.".(as Law 16B1(a) specifies). From the account given, with the conflict of statements by the players and the failure to establish the pause as L16B2 allows, my inclination is to this opinion also, but it is for the on-site committee to judge. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Tue Nov 10 10:38:04 2009 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (Ciska Zuur) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:38:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Warning; identity theft In-Reply-To: <4F8C46F028FB4C5F8CC8AE9005FE82F5@erdos> References: <4AF74481.5070906@aol.com><4AF760A8.9060102@consolidated.net><4AF82CC2.9000401@aol.com><000001ca6155$754326d0$5fc97470$@com> <4F8C46F028FB4C5F8CC8AE9005FE82F5@erdos> Message-ID: <6C3BE4CFA46949DB8C56473AD816BE4E@PCCiska> It is a widely spread problem in the NL and it occurs even with computers of authorities. 'Someone' did hack your computer and is using your email adresses to send out SPAM. For others it seems that you are sending it and they will open it. It is very, very difficult to block it. But you can try the following: As they start on the beginning of your address list, make the first 'name' of your list something like 0000. This is a 'not-possible' email adress and blocks the sending. Hoping it wil help you too. Ciska Zuur ----- Original Message ----- From: David Grabiner To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 5:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Warning; identity theft Usually, this is not an indication of computer problems on your own computer. Many spam programs will pick both a sender and a recipient from the victim's address book, making it more likely that the recipient will recognize the sender and open the spam. If the recipient's address is invalid, some systems bounce the mail back to the address listed as the sender, leading to the "undeliverable" message. ----- Original Message ----- From: "laval dubreuil" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Warning; identity theft Hi all, Back to the list. Be aware of this Jeff and ask somebody, if you cannot, checking why your are sending emails without knowing. Sometimes ago I realized that my computer was under the control of somebody else every Friday night receiving messages like "Your email to somebody in Tokyo (or elsewhere around the world) was not delivered". I had much trouble using my computer at that time and more trouble solving this problem despite the fact I had all protection you can imagine. Laval Du Breuil Quebec -----Message d'origine----- De : blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Jeff Easterson Envoy? : 9 novembre 2009 09:53 ? : Bridge Laws Mailing List Objet : Re: [BLML] Warning; identity theft Hola Robert! No, not from me, ignore it. JE Robert Park schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Hola! Recently some friends (including one from blml) have enquired >> about emails, supposedly from me, in which they were encouraged to join >> some obscure list (seemingly similar to facebook) so as to communicate >> with friends. Be aware that such emails are not from me and my >> recommendation is to ignore them. JE >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > Jeff--- Is the infoaxe message that came under you name really from you? > --bp > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091110/ec0ee4b1/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 10 12:59:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:59:03 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The Etceteras of a Regulation References: <051C27EEB3AC48778342C852B0EFC616@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > (Nigel Guthrie, 2006) > "Most law-makers are directors". > < > WBF Drafting Committee (2002/06) > Directors: Max Bavin, Ton Kooijman, William J. Schoder. > Others: Grattan Endicott, Joan Gerard, Jeffrey Polisner, > John Wignall. > Contributors to the drafting: the late Ralph Cohen (not a Director), > Antonio Riccardi (Director). > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 10 14:28:08 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:28:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Non-NABC+ Appeals in Washington DC In-Reply-To: <07A3D90C5F14431998C2590FE5D7FB7F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <07A3D90C5F14431998C2590FE5D7FB7F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4AF96A68.5070503@ulb.ac.be> Marvin L French a ?crit : > Case 15 N/S vul East dlr > > North > AQ53 > 42 > KJ654 > J3 > West East > J42 9 > K953 AJ8 > Q73 AT8 > Q74 AK9852 > South > K10876 > Q1076 > 92 > 106 > > West North East South > -- -- 1C Pass > 1H 1NT* 2C 2S > Pass Pass 3C 3S > Pass** Pass 4C Pass > Pass Pass > > * Spades and diamonds > ** Alleged break in tempo > > Opening lead 9D, made 4, E/W +130 > > The facts: The director was called after the play of the hand. North > thought the BIT was 7-10 seconds, South 7 seconds, West 2 seconds, > and East did not notice one. Both pairs vehemently held to their > opinions. > > The Ruling: > > The director determined that there was a BIT because after bidding > clubs three times it would have been difficult to bid clubs yet > again in the absence of a BIT. AG : so they mean East bid 4C because there was a BIT ? I would say exactly the contrary : after the BIT, bidding 4C is perfectly ethical. With East's strong defensive hand, I would never imagine passing 3S. (unless, perhaps, I played a good system, where 3C shows 6C and 3H - copy on request) A TO double seems obvious. However, I would hesitate doubling after the tempo, and might well decide to bid 4C "bending backwards". (indeed, the suggested double would score at least 200) So we see here a case where EW could be penalized for doing their duty. One question wasn't asked : is Pass a LA ? If not, then surely 4C isn't suggested over the other LA (double), so it must be allowed. Not acting that way, both the TD and the AC were completely wrong. Best regards Alain From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 10 18:21:11 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:21:11 -0700 Subject: [BLML] NABC+ appeals Washington Message-ID: <63491FC3AFC64B119D8142CDCC5ADD92@MARVLAPTOP> Just a few more comments. Case 6 -- No damage from UI, but a PP for flagrant creation and use of UI. I can't find that in the Laws, but my opinion is shared by few. One exception is Allan Falk on the ACBL LC, whose opinion was ignored by the LC along with mine. All this yammering about "rectification" instead of "penalty" and yet a penalty is imposed when no rectification is in order, or sometimes on top of a rectification. (In ACBL-land only by ACs, not by individual TDs SFAIK.) If bridge tradition is to be violated by punishing ethical violations on the scorecard instead of handling them outside of the game, why not simply add "ethical violations" to L90B's examples of punishable offenses? And don't tell me that being ethical is a procedure! For an extensive discussion of this matter, look in my web site under Bridge Laws and Regulations. Case 12 involved a revoke (not MI, as the table of contents says) that caused more damage than the nominal one-trick penalty granted by the TD, so the score was adjusted equitably for both sides by the AC. The adjustment in effect gave the non-offenders two tricks for the revoke instead of one. Among the AC's comments: " It's important to note that the non-offending side was not getting a great result because of the revoke; it did not help them at all. They were in the process of getting a great result when the revoke happened. If the revoke was what caused their good result, then they already had equity and no more is to be granted.That is not what happened here. Hence, the committee judged to award an adjusted score in accordance with Law 12." Are they are saying that if a one-trick penalty is what gives the opposition a great result then further compensation is not in order? That is surely not what L64C intends. L64C: When after an established revoke....the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score. If a revoke prevents my side from taking more tricks than those resulting from a one-trick penalty, then that is insufficient compensation, period. "Damage caused" is trick damage, not matchpoint damage. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 10 18:49:42 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:49:42 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Non-NABC+ Appeals in Washington DC References: <07A3D90C5F14431998C2590FE5D7FB7F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <5693D66D9C0D4D6FAB44D650618ED04E@MARVLAPTOP> > >> Case 15 N/S vul East dlr >> >> North >> AQ53 >> 42 >> KJ654 >> J3 >> West East >> J42 9 >> K953 AJ8 >> Q73 AT8 >> Q74 AK9852 >> South >> K10876 >> Q1076 >> 92 >> 106 >> >> West North East South >> -- -- 1C Pass >> 1H 1NT* 2C 2S >> Pass Pass 3C 3S >> Pass** Pass 4C Pass >> Pass Pass >> >> * Spades and diamonds >> ** Alleged break in tempo >> >> Opening lead 9D, made 4, E/W +130 >> >> The facts: The director was called after the play of the hand. >> North >> thought the BIT was 7-10 seconds, South 7 seconds, West 2 >> seconds, >> and East did not notice one. Both pairs vehemently held to their >> opinions. >> >> The Ruling: >> >> The director determined that there was a BIT because after >> bidding >> clubs three times it would have been difficult to bid clubs yet >> again in the absence of a BIT. The BIT demonstrably suggested >> bidding again and pass was judged to be a logical alternative. >> The >> result was adjusted to 3S by South down one, N/S -100 for both >> sides. Laws 16 and 12C1(e) >> >> The Decision: >> >> The committee needed to determine whether or not a hesiation >> occurred. While it is true that the 4C call by East was unusual >> in >> this auction, there were other factors in the hand which >> suggested >> that a BIT had not occurred. The timing of the Director call was >> unusual. N/S made no statement at the time of the alleged >> infraction, such as 'Do you agree there was a BIT?' N/S did not >> call >> when 4S was bid. N/S did not call when dummy hit (revealing a fit >> with little spade wastage), but waited until completetion of the >> hand when 4S was made.Also, N/S's suggestion that the other two >> calls by West were instantaneous compared to the third call made >> it >> seem likely that the actual duration was about 2-3 seconds, >> seeming >> longer in contrast. The committee felt that this did not rise to >> the level of "an unmistakable hesitation" as required by law. >> Therefore, the table result of 4C by East making four, E/W +130, >> was >> restored by both sides. >> >> The Committee: Mark Itabashi (Chair) Tom Carmichael and Chris >> Moll. >> >> For starters, a TD is in the best position for deciding on BITs, >> and >> an AC should not change that opinion without good cause. Looking >> at >> both the East and West hands, the likelihood of a BIT seems very >> high and the TD's opinion should have prevailed. >> >> The timing of the Director call was unusual? But the end of play >> is >> the proper time for doing that, per Law 16B3: ...."he should >> summon >> the Director when play ends." There is nothing wrong with waiting >> until damage is obvious to call the Director, in fact it is good >> policy. It certainly did not "suggest that a bit had not >> occurred." >> >> "N/S made no statement at the time of the alleged infraction, >> such >> as 'Do you agree there was a BIT?'" L16B2 says a player who >> perceives UI *may* say something about it at the time, but it is >> not >> required. Nor is there any suggestion that any "agreement" >> should >> be sought. >> >> 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. >> >> That's *the opponents*, not the side commenting on the UI. The >> ACBL >> has not chosen to either forbid or require a TD call at this >> time, >> so it is optional with the player. >> >> I will suggest to Mark that he get a copy of the Laws next time I >> see him. >> > +=+ I think the AC has every right to take the view it did - i.e. > "The > committee felt that this did not rise to the level of 'an > unmistakable > hesitation'.".(as Law 16B1(a) specifies). > From the account given, with the conflict of statements by > the > players and the failure to establish the pause as L16B2 allows, my > inclination is to this opinion also, but it is for the on-site > committee > to judge. Have you nothing to say about the comments of the AC regarding the delay in calling the Director, which they say verified the non-existence of a BIT? Are they not completely wrong? Doesn't that imply that they would have ruled no BIT if the TD call had been earlier? Have you no problem with that? Comments by players about BITs are mainly irrelevant because of inevitable bias. When a player says there was a BIT and the hands of both opponents support that, then the BIT was almost certainly there. West passed fast for several rounds, then noticeably slower on the last round. That's a BIT for this player. There was a well-known case in which Judy Wolff's opening was passed very slowly by her LHO and her RHO balanced very slowly, bidding 2C with garbage. LHO then passed with a huge hand. The BIT by LHO was denied vehmently, so the AC said there was nothing that could be done. That was nonsense, as Judy (like nearly everyone) would not invent a BIT if it wasn't there, and the opposing hands gave strong argument for her claim.. As a postscript to this, the BIT by RHO was readily acknowledged but the AC did not adjust the score (to 2NT off one) for that! Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 10 19:03:40 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:03:40 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Non-NABC+ Appeals in Washington DC References: <07A3D90C5F14431998C2590FE5D7FB7F@MARVLAPTOP> <4AF96A68.5070503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <562C5AC2686F418791C0A22B7B7917A4@MARVLAPTOP> >From Alain Gottcheiner: Marvin L French a ?crit : > Case 15 N/S vul East dlr > > North > AQ53 > 42 > KJ654 > J3 > West East > J42 9 > K953 AJ8 > Q73 AT8 > Q74 AK9852 > South > K10876 > Q1076 > 92 > 106 > > West North East South > -- -- 1C Pass > 1H 1NT* 2C 2S > Pass Pass 3C 3S > Pass** Pass 4C Pass > Pass Pass > > * Spades and diamonds > ** Alleged break in tempo > > Opening lead 9D, made 4, E/W +130 > > The facts: The director was called after the play of the hand. > North > thought the BIT was 7-10 seconds, South 7 seconds, West 2 seconds, > and East did not notice one. Both pairs vehemently held to their > opinions. > > The Ruling: > > The director determined that there was a BIT because after bidding > clubs three times it would have been difficult to bid clubs yet > again in the absence of a BIT. AG : so they mean East bid 4C because there was a BIT ? I would say exactly the contrary : after the BIT, bidding 4C is perfectly ethical. With East's strong defensive hand, I would never imagine passing 3S. (unless, perhaps, I played a good system, where 3C shows 6C and 3H - copy on request) A TO double seems obvious. However, I would hesitate doubling after the tempo, and might well decide to bid 4C "bending backwards". (indeed, the suggested double would score at least 200) So we see here a case where EW could be penalized for doing their duty. MLF] It doesn't matter what you would do. If there was a BIT, which the AC denied, then it certainly suggests action. Is passing 3S something that no significant number of East's peers would do in the absence of a BIT? If so, adjust the score. It not, then you are correct. One question wasn't asked : is Pass a LA ? MLF] That was not a consideration after the AC decided no BIT was established. End of subject. If not, then surely 4C isn't suggested over the other LA (double), so it must be allowed. MLF] If the BIT suggests action and passing is an LA, then any superior LA is irrelevant, not permissible. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Nov 10 21:07:42 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:07:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Non-NABC+ Appeals in Washington DC In-Reply-To: <5693D66D9C0D4D6FAB44D650618ED04E@MARVLAPTOP> References: <07A3D90C5F14431998C2590FE5D7FB7F@MARVLAPTOP> <5693D66D9C0D4D6FAB44D650618ED04E@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4AF9C80E.2030303@yahoo.co.uk> I don't agree with Marvin's view (advanced by other BLMLers, in the past) that if a hand is *consistent* with a hesitation then that is good evidence that a hesitation did in fact occur. I agree however, with Marvin's assessment that the director was is usually in a better position to determine the length of the hesitation than the committee. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Nov 10 21:23:46 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:23:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Etceteras of a Regulation In-Reply-To: References: <051C27EEB3AC48778342C852B0EFC616@Mildred> Message-ID: <4AF9CBD2.7010401@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel Guthrie, 2006 -- quoted by Richard Hills] "Most law-makers are directors". [Grattan Endicott] ******************************** "The unluckiest insolvent in the world is the man whose expenditure of speech is too great for his income of ideas." ~ Christopher Morley WBF Drafting Committee (2002/06) Directors: Max Bavin, Ton Kooijman, William J. Schoder. Others: Grattan Endicott, Joan Gerard, Jeffrey Polisner, John Wignall. Contributors to the drafting: the late Ralph Cohen (not a Director), Antonio Riccardi (Director). [Nigel] What I said is trivially in true, in that many players are occasionally co-opted to direct at *club* level. Grattan is right, however, that what I believed (apparently mistakenly) is that most law-makers are *qualified* directors :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 10 22:01:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:01:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Wild or Gambling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Bill Bryson, "Mother Tongue", pp 70-71: "Sometimes words are made up for a specific purpose. The U.S. Army in 1974 devised a food called _funistrada_ as a test word during a survey of soldiers' dietary preferences. Although no such food existed, funistrada ranked higher in the survey than lima beans or eggplant (which seems about right to me, at least as far as the lima beans go)." Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 3NT (1) Pass ? (1) This is the "Wild or Gambling 3NT" convention. Any solid 7- or 8-card suit (not necessarily a minor), no outside Ace nor King. You, South, hold: AKT83 9 9654 A92 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Tue Nov 10 22:24:37 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:24:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Wild or Gambling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <12107274.1257888277564.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 3NT (1) Pass ? > > (1) This is the "Wild or Gambling 3NT" convention. Any solid 7- or > 8-card suit (not necessarily a minor), no outside Ace nor King. > > You, South, hold: > > AKT83 > 9 > 9654 > A92 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? mmm, pairs. I consider both 4C (to find out which red suit partner holds) and pass. 3NT might make 10 tricks if they don't find the D lead and hearts roll in. 4H might make 11 tricks if partner has a little bit in spades or clubs, or if the defense fails to kick out the CA. If there is a H loser, then 4H is preferable over 3NT, and if partner has D rather than H, I'd expect RHO to frequently find the deadly H lead against 3NT. OTOH, if partner has diamonds, they might make 4H. At pairs, if I think according to our current score we should play it safe, I bid 4C. If I am looking for opportunities to create tops, I pass. At IMPs, I would always bid 4C. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 10 22:53:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:53:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Wild or Gambling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <12107274.1257888277564.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: [snip] At pairs, if I think according to our current score we should play it safe, I bid 4C. If I am looking for opportunities to create tops, I pass. At IMPs, I would always bid 4C. Thomas Law 40C1, first sentence: "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." >In a matchpoint game, are you supposed to tell your opponents that you >will be shooting because you need tops, or playing conservatively in the >last round because you think you need only an average to win? John (MadDog) Probst, 18th January 2007: I've had Paul Hackett (with punter) ask me how I was doing during a late round of a pairs competition. It seemed a reasonable and justifiable question to me and I answered it. He would know that I would not lie. The punter had no idea what was going on and assumed it was just polite conversation. When I then took a view on a hand, Paul knew exactly what was going on, and it would have been manifestly unfair to him if he'd not known where I thought I was in the field. I took Paul's question as a back-handed compliment. cheers john Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Tue Nov 10 23:04:24 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:04:24 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Wild or Gambling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5981237.1257890664129.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Thomas Dehn: > > [snip] > > At pairs, if I think according to our current score we should play it > safe, I bid 4C. If I am looking for opportunities to create tops, I pass. > > At IMPs, I would always bid 4C. > > > Thomas > > Law 40C1, first sentence: > > "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always > provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation > than have the opponents." Yes, but above I am not deviating from any announced agreements. > >In a matchpoint game, are you supposed to tell your opponents that you > >will be shooting because you need tops, or playing conservatively in the > >last round because you think you need only an average to win? > > John (MadDog) Probst, 18th January 2007: > > I've had Paul Hackett (with punter) ask me how I was doing during a late > round of a pairs competition. It seemed a reasonable and justifiable > question to me and I answered it. He would know that I would not lie. The > punter had no idea what was going on and assumed it was just polite > conversation. When I then took a view on a hand, Paul knew exactly what > was going on, and it would have been manifestly unfair to him if he'd not > known where I thought I was in the field. I took Paul's question as a > back-handed compliment. cheers john MadDog is correct there, of course. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 11 00:23:45 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:23:45 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Non-NABC+ Appeals in Washington DC References: <07A3D90C5F14431998C2590FE5D7FB7F@MARVLAPTOP> <5693D66D9C0D4D6FAB44D650618ED04E@MARVLAPTOP> <4AF9C80E.2030303@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: From: "Nigel Guthrie" >I don't agree with Marvin's view (advanced by other BLMLers, in the > past) that if a hand is *consistent* with a hesitation then that > is good > evidence that a hesitation did in fact occur. My view is that it has corroborative value that is sometimes very strong. Not so strong in this case, true, but helpful when it's hard to know whom to believe. > > I agree however, with Marvin's assessment that the director was is > usually in a better position to determine the length of the > hesitation > than the committee. And the TD rightly did not take the delay in calling him into consideration, as the AC did in its ignorance of L16B2/3, but used East's hand as corroboration of what appeared to him to be true.. He should have used West's hand also, but evidently thought that one was enough. Directors are right there in the heat of battle, hearing what people say before they have time to consider things at leisure, perhaps with partnership consultation. I trust their judgment more than that of a trio of legal amateurs who have little knowledge of the Laws. Moreover, it is up to the TD to interpret any law that applies to a case, and this ACs perception that the delay in calling the TD was not proper procedure, injuring credibility, is dead wrong. Had the TD been present, as required by regulation, he/she might have told them that. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Nov 11 01:40:44 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:40:44 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Wild or Gambling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <12107274.1257888277564.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <12107274.1257888277564.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <001901ca6267$9a94b170$cfbe1450$@com> [TD] > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 3NT (1) Pass ? > > (1) This is the "Wild or Gambling 3NT" convention. Any solid 7- or > 8-card suit (not necessarily a minor), no outside Ace nor King. > > You, South, hold: > > AKT83 > 9 > 9654 > A92 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? OTOH, if partner has diamonds, they might make 4H. [DALB] Indeed they might. I wonder how much a sacrifice in five diamonds, or even six, would cost? David Burn London, England From wrgptfan at gmail.com Wed Nov 11 03:10:30 2009 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:10:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wild or Gambling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901ca6267$9a94b170$cfbe1450$@com> References: <12107274.1257888277564.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <001901ca6267$9a94b170$cfbe1450$@com> Message-ID: Well if partner has xxx x AKQxxxx xx it may be a phantom :) Clearly, as David points out, with virtually any hand that partner has 2 or fewer spades and a diamond suit, slam should be, at the worst, good. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 10, 2009, at 19:40, "David Burn" wrote: > [TD] > >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Pass 3NT (1) Pass ? >> >> (1) This is the "Wild or Gambling 3NT" convention. Any solid 7- or >> 8-card suit (not necessarily a minor), no outside Ace nor King. >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> AKT83 >> 9 >> 9654 >> A92 >> >> What call do you make? >> What other calls do you consider making? > > OTOH, if partner has diamonds, they might make 4H. > > [DALB] > > Indeed they might. I wonder how much a sacrifice in five diamonds, > or even > six, would cost? > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 11 04:33:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:33:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Wild or Gambling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <12107274.1257888277564.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass: "I see you're admiring my little box." the Knight said in a friendly tone. "It's my own invention - to keep clothes and sandwiches in. You see I carry it upside-down, so that the rain can't get in." >>>>Matchpoint pairs >>>>Dlr: West >>>>Vul: Both >>>> >>>>The bidding has gone: >>>> >>>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>>Pass 3NT (1) Pass ? >>>> >>>>(1) This is the "Wild or Gambling 3NT" convention. Any solid 7- or >>>> 8-card suit (not necessarily a minor), no outside Ace nor King. >>>> >>>>You, South, hold: >>>> >>>>AKT83 >>>>9 >>>>9654 >>>>A92 >>>> >>>>What call do you make? >>>>What other calls do you consider making? Thomas Dehn: >>>mmm, pairs. I consider both 4C (to find out which red suit partner >>>holds) and pass. >>>..... >>>if partner has D rather than H, I'd expect RHO to frequently find >>>the deadly H lead against 3NT. OTOH, if partner has diamonds, they >>>might make 4H. >>>..... David Burn: >>Indeed they might. I wonder how much a sacrifice in five diamonds, or >>even six, would cost? David Kent: >Well if partner has xxx x AKQxxxx xx it may be a phantom :) Clearly, >as David points out, with virtually any hand that partner has 2 or >fewer spades and a diamond suit, slam should be, at the worst, good. Karapet the Unlucky Q2 T AKQJ732 T87 The Hideous Hog The Rueful Rabbit J9 7654 J8654 AKQ732 T 8 KQJ54 63 Papa the Greek AKT83 9 T953 A92 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH H.H. Karapet R.R. Papa Pass 3NT Pass(1) 4H (2) Pass Pass(3) Pass(4) (1) If the Rabbit bid 4H, he might end up as declarer. Perhaps the Hog might back in with 4H instead. (2) Papa was rather pleased that his "own invention", the Wild or Gambling 3NT, had finally occurred at the table. So Papa quickly bid a pass-or-correct 4H, intending to raise a possible conversion of 5D to 6D. (3) Karapet was unlucky in that he had carefully perused Papa's system notes more recently than Papa. In those Wild or Gambling system notes Papa had carefully defined a response to 3NT of 4H as a 100% drop dead signoff, following logic of Papa's "own invention" that a misfit might sometimes yield +620 in South's heart suit instead of +600 in North's diamond suit. (4) The Rabbit wanted to double 4H for penalty, but fearfully remembered those times when Papa had redoubled and had almost made his contract. Result: 4H making four tricks, -600. Karapet continued to be unlucky, since he did not even get a good story about his cold bottom. Karapet's second-bottom was due to an East-West pair playing 4H in the other direction, and getting a diamond ruff-sluff at trick two for +620. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com Wed Nov 11 07:24:21 2009 From: ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com (Ranju Bhattacharjee) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:54:21 +0530 Subject: [BLML] BIT Message-ID: Hello , Here is yet another ' interesting ' appeal case from a recent tournament held at Mumbai, India. I request an opinion from you all gentlemen. Event : Match Point Pairs, Board 11, both non-vul Bidding : W N E S facts : P 1H 1S 2D 3S EW were playing Precision dbl P 4H P dbl was take out 4NT P 5D P 5D was ONE ACE 5H P 6H P 5H with BIT P P TD was called by South after the bidding was over. South protected rights against slight BIT and subsequent 6H bid by East TD asked players to continue play. North led a small spade (D A & Q were well placed for Declarer ) The EW hand were W : VOID AKT7XX , XX , AKxXX E : AJXX QJ9 KJXXX , X TD asked the players about BIT aspect. South said there was BIT . E said there was not a long pause by East but a slight one TD studied hands and ruled that 6H contract be disallowed and reverted table result to 5H made 6 EW appealed Appeals Committee talked to players involved and to the TD AC 's verdict : Split ruling . Average plus to EW and average minus to NS !!! basic issues according to me are : 1) Even if AC grants EW that there was no discernible pause or BIT , whether E hand qualified for raise to 6H ? IF PASS was a very logical alternative and hence he should have bent backwards and passed 5H . The fact he did bid 6H , could it be inferred there must have been something at the table that prompted him to bid 6H ? 2) Can caliber of West come into picture, so that if he is a non expert , ' innocence' can be a ground for allowing 6H ? 3) In cases of ' hesitation Blackwood ' , can there be a split ruling , or should AC either reject or uphold the appeal fully. North- South Hands North South S-Kxxxx S-Q10xx H-x H-8xx D- Axxx D- Qx C- J10x C- Qxxxx With Regards Ranju Bhattacharjee on belalf of Arvind Vaidya _________________________________________________________________ New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more. http://windows.microsoft.com/shop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091111/56d71246/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 11 12:39:04 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:39:04 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Wild or Gambling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <12107274.1257888277564.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <001901ca6267$9a94b170$cfbe1450$@com> Message-ID: <26367541.1257939544371.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> David Kent wrote: > Well if partner has xxx x AKQxxxx xx it may be a phantom :) Clearly, > as David points out, with virtually any hand that partner has 2 or > fewer spades and a diamond suit, slam should be, at the worst, good. Well, holding 4-1 in the reds I was not gonna spend much time thinking about whether 6D might make or not. Give partner xx,x,AKQJxxx,xxx, and 6D need 3-3 in spades. Give partner x,xx,AKQJxxx,xxx, and on a C lead the slam is horrible. Thomas > On Nov 10, 2009, at 19:40, "David Burn" wrote: > > > [TD] > > > >> The bidding has gone: > >> > >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >> Pass 3NT (1) Pass ? > >> > >> (1) This is the "Wild or Gambling 3NT" convention. Any solid 7- or > >> 8-card suit (not necessarily a minor), no outside Ace nor King. > >> > >> You, South, hold: > >> > >> AKT83 > >> 9 > >> 9654 > >> A92 > >> > >> What call do you make? > >> What other calls do you consider making? > > > > OTOH, if partner has diamonds, they might make 4H. > > > > [DALB] > > > > Indeed they might. I wonder how much a sacrifice in five diamonds, > > or even > > six, would cost? > > > > 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 > Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Nov 11 16:39:11 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:39:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <807B1CA97B3948FE9BFF17EFC923E718@erdos> Assuming the BIT, I would rule that the contract should be adjusted back to 5H. If West had held x AKTxxx Qx KQxx (the same strength as the hand he held, so presumably a 1H opening), he would have bid the same way. Therefore, passing by East is a logical alternative, and East may not bid 6H. While it is possible that 5H could make only five, I will assume that declarer would take the same line of play in 5H that he did in 6H and that opening leader will not underlead the DA, so I would rule 5H making six. As for your questions: 1) If there was no BIT, East can do whatever he wants, but the E-W action can be taken into account in determining whether there was a BIT. Bidding 6H after partner signs off in 5H is normally a violation of partnership discipline, unless you have an undisclosed void. Therefore, East's bid and West's hand indicate that a BIT is likely. 2) The non-expert status of E-W does not negate the Laws, but it can be considered in how to apply them. You must rule against both novices and experts when they choose an action suggested by a BIT over a logical alternative; however, what a BIT suggests to a novice may be different. (On this sequence, the BIT suggests the same thing to everyone; a slow 5H indicates that West was considering a slam, as he can't reasonably be considering anything else.) The non-expert status should be considered in assessing a penalty; an expert East who bid 6H here should not only be ruled against, but should also be given a procedural penalty, as he should have known that what he did was wrong. (And unless there was a legitimate dispute about the BIT, I would impose whatever penalty is appropriate for an appeal without merit against a good E-W pair.) 3) A+/A- is not correct here. Law 12C1 dictates how to award an adjusted score. If E-W did not commit an infraction, the table score stands If E-W committed an infraction, the score must be adjusted based on the results which would have occurred without the infraction. Law 12C1(d) allows artificial scores such as A+/A- if the possibilities are numerous or not obvious; on this hand, the possibilities are obvious. Thus 12C1(c) or 12C1(e) should be used for the adjusted score, which could be 5H making five, 5H making six, or some combination. Furthermore, if A+/A- is awarded, it was awarded the wrong way. The pair at fault gets the A-, and on this hand, E-W were at fault. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ranju Bhattacharjee To: Bridge Law Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:24 AM Subject: [BLML] BIT Hello , Here is yet another ' interesting ' appeal case from a recent tournament held at Mumbai, India. I request an opinion from you all gentlemen. Event : Match Point Pairs, Board 11, both non-vul Bidding : W N E S facts : P 1H 1S 2D 3S EW were playing Precision dbl P 4H P dbl was take out 4NT P 5D P 5D was ONE ACE 5H P 6H P 5H with BIT P P TD was called by South after the bidding was over. South protected rights against slight BIT and subsequent 6H bid by East TD asked players to continue play. North led a small spade (D A & Q were well placed for Declarer ) The EW hand were W : VOID AKT7XX , XX , AKxXX E : AJXX QJ9 KJXXX , X TD asked the players about BIT aspect. South said there was BIT . E said there was not a long pause by East but a slight one TD studied hands and ruled that 6H contract be disallowed and reverted table result to 5H made 6 EW appealed Appeals Committee talked to players involved and to the TD AC 's verdict : Split ruling . Average plus to EW and average minus to NS !!! basic issues according to me are : 1) Even if AC grants EW that there was no discernible pause or BIT , whether E hand qualified for raise to 6H ? IF PASS was a very logical alternative and hence he should have bent backwards and passed 5H . The fact he did bid 6H , could it be inferred there must have been something at the table that prompted him to bid 6H ? 2) Can caliber of West come into picture, so that if he is a non expert , ' innocence' can be a ground for allowing 6H ? 3) In cases of ' hesitation Blackwood ' , can there be a split ruling , or should AC either reject or uphold the appeal fully. North- South Hands North South S-Kxxxx S-Q10xx H-x H-8xx D- Axxx D- Qx C- J10x C- Qxxxx With Regards Ranju Bhattacharjee on belalf of Arvind Vaidya ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20091111/59b18d71/attachment-0001.html From adam at irvine.com Wed Nov 11 17:07:35 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:07:35 -0800 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:54:21 +0530." Message-ID: <200911111555.HAA20380@mailhub.irvine.com> > > > > Hello , > > Here is yet another ' interesting ' appeal case from a recent tournament > held at Mumbai, India. > I request an opinion from you all gentlemen. > > Event : Match Point Pairs, Board 11, both non-vul > > Bidding : W N E S facts : > P > 1H 1S 2D 3S EW were > playing Precision > dbl P 4H P dbl was > take out > 4NT P 5D P 5D was > ONE ACE > 5H P 6H P 5H with > BIT > P P > > TD was called by South after the bidding was over. South protected rights > against slight BIT and subsequent 6H bid by East > TD asked players to continue play. North led a small spade (D A & Q were > well placed for Declarer ) > > The EW hand were W : VOID AKT7XX , XX , AKxXX > E : AJXX QJ9 KJXXX , X > > TD asked the players about BIT aspect. South said there was BIT . E said > there was not a long pause by East but a slight one > > TD studied hands and ruled that 6H contract be disallowed and reverted > table result to 5H made 6 > > EW appealed > > Appeals Committee talked to players involved and to the TD > > AC 's verdict : Split ruling . Average plus to EW and average minus to NS > !!! > > basic issues according to me are : > > 1) Even if AC grants EW that there was no discernible pause or BIT , > whether E hand qualified for raise to 6H ? IF PASS was a very logical > alternative and hence he should have bent backwards and passed 5H . The > fact he did bid 6H , could it be inferred there must have been something at > the table that prompted him to bid 6H ? > > 2) Can caliber of West come into picture, so that if he is a non expert , ' > innocence' can be a ground for allowing 6H ? > > 3) In cases of ' hesitation Blackwood ' , can there be a split ruling , or > should AC either reject or uphold the appeal fully. > > North- South Hands > > North South > S-Kxxxx S-Q10xx > H-x H-8xx > D- Axxx D- Qx > C- J10x C- Qxxxx I think that if a player bids Blackwood, gets a responses, hesitates before setting the contract, and partner bids on, this is such an obvious violation of the rules that adjustment should be automatic. The only exceptions would be: (1) responder has a void; (2) responder made the wrong response, and can convince the director that his discovery of a missing keycard in his hand wasn't prompted by UI; (3) responder made a 0-or-3 response with three keycards, or something similar; (4) the pair is playing unusual methods where Blackwooder's "setting the contract" really does invite responder to go on in certain cases. Not that I've ever seen such methods being played. Anyway, I'm shocked that the AC made a "split ruling" here. The only split I'd expect in an AC is a disagreement over whether to assess a heavy procedural penalty to E-W, or whether to just take East outside and shoot him. (But keep the deposit, in either case.) This is a blatant and offensive violation. Period. Next case. -- Adam From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 11 18:28:14 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:28:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wild or Gambling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5981237.1257890664129.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <5981237.1257890664129.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:04:24 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Thomas Dehn: >> >> [snip] >> >> At pairs, if I think according to our current score we should play it >> safe, I bid 4C. If I am looking for opportunities to create tops, I >> pass. >> >> At IMPs, I would always bid 4C. >> >> >> Thomas >> >> Law 40C1, first sentence: >> >> "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always >> provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the >> deviation >> than have the opponents." > > Yes, but above I am not deviating from any announced > agreements. > >> >In a matchpoint game, are you supposed to tell your opponents that you >> >will be shooting because you need tops, or playing conservatively in >> the >> >last round because you think you need only an average to win? >> >> John (MadDog) Probst, 18th January 2007: >> >> I've had Paul Hackett (with punter) ask me how I was doing during a late >> round of a pairs competition. It seemed a reasonable and justifiable >> question to me and I answered it. He would know that I would not lie. >> The >> punter had no idea what was going on and assumed it was just polite >> conversation. When I then took a view on a hand, Paul knew exactly what >> was going on, and it would have been manifestly unfair to him if he'd >> not >> known where I thought I was in the field. I took Paul's question as a >> back-handed compliment. cheers john > > > MadDog is correct there, of course. He is? I am guessing you are talking about some general sportsmanship idea, not the laws of bridge. From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Nov 11 20:24:30 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:24:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <200911111555.HAA20380@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200911111555.HAA20380@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4AFB0F6E.9000006@consolidated.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > I think that if a player bids Blackwood, gets a responses, hesitates > before setting the contract, and partner bids on, this is such an > obvious violation of the rules that adjustment should be automatic. > The only exceptions would be: > > (1) responder has a void; > (2) responder made the wrong response, and can convince the director > that his discovery of a missing keycard in his hand wasn't > prompted by UI; > (3) responder made a 0-or-3 response with three keycards, or something > similar; > (4) the pair is playing unusual methods where Blackwooder's "setting > the contract" really does invite responder to go on in certain > cases. Not that I've ever seen such methods being played. > > Re (4): My standard agreement with my partners is that we are expected to go on to slam with 3 or 4 keycards when asker signs off over a 0/3 or 1/4 reply...on the grounds that partner should not have asked if 3 or 4 keycards would not have been good news. I don't see why this would be an "unusual method." FWIW, we protect ourselves from "hesitation" rulings by adding this note to our convention card: "Responder goes on with a max." --Bob Park From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 11 20:34:36 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:34:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] BIT References: <200911111555.HAA20380@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <7379273B15FD4D24ABDEAD4C208EFBDB@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] BIT > >> >> >> >> Hello , >> >> Here is yet another ' interesting ' appeal case from a >> recent tournament held at Mumbai, India. >> I request an opinion from you all gentlemen. >> >> Event : Match Point Pairs, Board 11, both non-vul >> >> Bidding : W N E S facts : >> P >> 1H 1S 2D 3S EW were >> playing Precision >> dbl P 4H P dbl >> was >> take out >> 4NT P 5D P 5D was >> ONE ACE >> 5H P 6H P 5H >> with >> BIT >> P P >> >> TD was called by South after the bidding was over. South protected rights >> against slight BIT and subsequent 6H bid by East >> TD asked players to continue play. North led a small spade (D A & Q were >> well placed for Declarer ) >> >> The EW hand were W : VOID AKT7XX , XX , AKxXX >> E : AJXX QJ9 KJXXX , X >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' +=+ Beyond any doubt the Director and the AC have one simple decision to make: Was there a BIT? If they decide 'yes' the result is put back to 5H making a number* of tricks; Both sides are given this score. If their answer is 'no', the table result stands for both sides. There are no other possibilities. The reported decision is not 'interesting', it is a farce. (*I think 12 rather than 11 is better.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Nov 11 20:53:20 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:53:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <4AFB0F6E.9000006@consolidated.net> References: <200911111555.HAA20380@mailhub.irvine.com> <4AFB0F6E.9000006@consolidated.net> Message-ID: "Robert Park" writes: > Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> >> I think that if a player bids Blackwood, gets a responses, hesitates >> before setting the contract, and partner bids on, this is such an >> obvious violation of the rules that adjustment should be automatic. >> The only exceptions would be: >> >> (1) responder has a void; >> (2) responder made the wrong response, and can convince the director >> that his discovery of a missing keycard in his hand wasn't >> prompted by UI; >> (3) responder made a 0-or-3 response with three keycards, or something >> similar; >> (4) the pair is playing unusual methods where Blackwooder's "setting >> the contract" really does invite responder to go on in certain >> cases. Not that I've ever seen such methods being played. I would not normally accept (1), because going on with a void is based on an assumption that the void is useful (not opposite one of partner's aces) and unless that is clear from the auction, the hesitation makes it more attractive to go on. (2) and (3) are clear. (4) can apply if opener sets the contract at the 6-level and responder corrects at the same level; if opener bids 4NT and then hesitates before bidding 6H, responder may be allowed to bid 6NT to go for a matchpoint top. >> > Re (4): My standard agreement with my partners is that we are expected > to go on to slam with 3 or 4 keycards when asker signs off over a 0/3 or > 1/4 reply...on the grounds that partner should not have asked if 3 or 4 > keycards would not have been good news. I don't see why this would be an > "unusual method." This is covered by (3). With 4 keycards, responder must go on, as you don't use Blackwood if you aren't interested in slam when your siade has 4. With 3, responder must go on unless it is clear from the auction that he can't have 0 (he opened 2C or made a strong jump shift, for example). From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Nov 11 21:00:32 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:00:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AFB17E0.1040908@yahoo.co.uk> [Ranju Bhattacharjee] TD asked the players about BIT aspect. South said there was BIT . E said there was not a long pause by East but a slight one [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Beyond any doubt the Director and the AC have one simple decision to make: Was there a BIT? If they decide 'yes' the result is put back to 5H making a number* of tricks; Both sides are given this score. If their answer is 'no', the table result stands for both sides. There are no other possibilities. The reported decision is not 'interesting', it is a farce. (*I think 12 rather than 11 is better.) [Nige1] I think we can assume that East (the putative offender) is admitting to the truth and that he meant that *West* paused slightly. From adam at irvine.com Wed Nov 11 21:31:09 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:31:09 -0800 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:53:20 EST." Message-ID: <200911112018.MAA23008@mailhub.irvine.com> David Grabiner wrote: > "Robert Park" writes: > > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> > >> > >> I think that if a player bids Blackwood, gets a responses, hesitates > >> before setting the contract, and partner bids on, this is such an > >> obvious violation of the rules that adjustment should be automatic. > >> The only exceptions would be: > >> > >> (1) responder has a void; > >> (2) responder made the wrong response, and can convince the director > >> that his discovery of a missing keycard in his hand wasn't > >> prompted by UI; > >> (3) responder made a 0-or-3 response with three keycards, or something > >> similar; > >> (4) the pair is playing unusual methods where Blackwooder's "setting > >> the contract" really does invite responder to go on in certain > >> cases. Not that I've ever seen such methods being played. > > I would not normally accept (1), because going on with a void is based on an > assumption that the void is useful (not opposite one of partner's aces) and > unless that is clear from the auction, the hesitation makes it more attractive > to go on. Yeah, but that just means it's not automatic to adjust---it means the director has to think about things a little bit before rolling the contract back, assessing a PP, and throwing the perpetrator out of the tournament and/or the window. I was mostly trying to distinguish the Hesitation Blackwood cases where a director can adjust without thinking about it, from the cases where the director may have to consider things a little more deeply (but likely will still adjust). > (2) and (3) are clear. > > (4) can apply if opener sets the contract at the 6-level and responder corrects > at the same level; if opener bids 4NT and then hesitates before bidding 6H, > responder may be allowed to bid 6NT to go for a matchpoint top. Right, I didn't think about that; the typical case we hear about is one where Blackwooder hesitates and stops short of six (or seven) and responder then goes on. In cases where responder changes the contract but not the level, then it does require some thought on the director's part to determine whether the bid is legal. > > Re (4): My standard agreement with my partners is that we are expected > > to go on to slam with 3 or 4 keycards when asker signs off over a 0/3 or > > 1/4 reply...on the grounds that partner should not have asked if 3 or 4 > > keycards would not have been good news. I don't see why this would be an > > "unusual method." > > This is covered by (3). With 4 keycards, responder must go on, as you don't use > Blackwood if you aren't interested in slam when your siade has 4. With 3, > responder must go on unless it is clear from the auction that he can't have 0 > (he opened 2C or made a strong jump shift, for example). My feeling about this is that if you have 4 keycards, and partner signs off after you make a 1-or-4 response, what the #@*^ was he doing using Blackwood in the first place? Something must have gone wrong somewhere. But this is just my ranting about bidding theory and has nothing to do with the actual UI problem. -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 11 21:43:36 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:43:36 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <200911112018.MAA23008@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200911112018.MAA23008@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <30475245.1257972216937.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: > My feeling about this is that if you have 4 keycards, and partner > signs off after you make a 1-or-4 response, what the #@*^ was he doing > using Blackwood in the first place? Partner has four keycards, and both trump queens. Unfortunately, that means that two keycards are still missing, as you are playing with a Pinocle deck. :-) Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 11 22:13:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:13:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Wild or Gambling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 2007 Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Molly the Mule Q2 T AKQJ732 T87 Timothy the Toucan Walter the Walrus J9 7654 J8654 AKQ732 T 8 KQJ54 63 Charlie the Chimp AKT83 9 T953 A92 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH T.T. M.M. W.W. Ch. Ch. Pass 3NT (1) Pass(2) 4H (3) Pass Pass(4) X (5) ? (1) This is the "Wild or Gambling 3NT" convention. Any solid 7- or 8-card suit (not necessarily a minor), no outside Ace nor King. (2) Only 9 hcp, not nearly enough for the Walrus to bid 4H. (3) The Chimp was rather pleased that his stolen convention, the Wild or Gambling 3NT, had finally occurred at the table. Not trusting Molly's declarer play, the Chimp opted for a pass-or- correct 4H instead of the alternative pass-or-correct 4C. (4) A significant break in tempo, as Molly assessed the 4H bid. But Molly was unlucky in that she had carelessly perused the stolen system notes more recently than had the Chimp. In those stolen system notes Papa had carefully defined a response to 3NT of 4H as a 100% drop dead signoff, following logic of Papa's "own invention" that a misfit might sometimes yield +620 in South's heart suit instead of +600 in North's diamond suit. (5) The Walrus doubled at the speed of light. Is Molly's slow Pass UI counterbalanced by Walter's fast double AI? Should the 2018 Law 16B1(b) be rewritten to read: "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using what is believed to be 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. * That is, if a player has an incorrect belief about their methods, but is reminded of their methods by unauthorized information, then logical alternatives are assessed in accordance with the player's initial incorrect belief, not in accordance with the actual methods. See Law 75A." Best wishes Papa the Greek -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 11 22:52:26 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:52:26 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 References: <10531545.1252704580802.JavaMail.root@ps28> Message-ID: Grattan, you wrote: >> > +=+ I just wonder Marv if you haven't got a bee in the bonnet on > this subject. The committee simply did not feel it was primarily a > laws matter, so we looked and passed on. Actually I have a Chip on my shoulder :-) Marv From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 11 23:26:43 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:26:43 -0700 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide Message-ID: <802A8412B26441969F047D693A6DE34C@MARVLAPTOP> An anonymous member of the ACBL LC made this comment to me via Adam, in regard to my guidelines for handling UI: >16B2 says that if the non-huddling side says that they "reserve the >right to > summon the director later", that "The opponents should summon the > director > immediately if they dispute" this. The guidelines interpret this > to mean > that the side that reserved their rights should *not* call the > director if > the other side disputes the facts (but does not choose to call the > director). However, I would assume that the non-huddling side > could, and in > fact probably should, call the director if the other side disputes > the > facts, but chooses not to call the director. It seems to me that L16B2 would have said that, if so. No reason not to. Do not assume unstated laws, as in "had the irregularity not occurred" for L12C1(e)(ii). My position is that failing to call the TD as the huddling side "should" is not in itself a cause for calling the TD. It's an infraction, but if I don't call attention to the infraction (e.g., "You should call the TD if you disagree") then I am not obligated to call the TD if they don't, according to Law9: The Director should be summoned at once if attention is called to an irregularity." So I just say, "Let's continue, please." Since I am not inclined to teach opponents about the Laws (not my job), I believe this is proper procedure. Right or wrong, BLML? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 11 23:47:52 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:47:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <802A8412B26441969F047D693A6DE34C@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: >..... >Right or wrong, BLML? > >Marv Neither. In my opinion Law 16B2 is a fossilised relic of the approach taken in the 1960s by Edgar Kaplan and others, whereby the non-offending side always lost all of their Law 16 rights unless they summoned the Director as soon as possible. So in my opinion Law 16B2 should be repealed in 2018, which would render Marv's knotty scenario moot. R.J.B. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Nov 12 00:10:39 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:10:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide In-Reply-To: <802A8412B26441969F047D693A6DE34C@MARVLAPTOP> References: <802A8412B26441969F047D693A6DE34C@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4AFB446F.1030902@yahoo.co.uk> [An anonymous member of the ACBL LC] 16B2 says that if the non-huddling side says that they "reserve the right to summon the director later", that "The opponents should summon the director immediately if they dispute" this. The guidelines interpret this to mean that the side that reserved their rights should *not* call the director if the other side disputes the facts (but does not choose to call the director). However, I would assume that the non-huddling side could, and in fact probably should, call the director if the other side disputes the facts, but chooses not to call the director. [Marvin French] It seems to me that L16B2 would have said that, if so. No reason not to. Do not assume unstated laws, as in "had the irregularity not occurred" for L12C1(e)(ii). My position is that failing to call the TD as the huddling side "should" is not in itself a cause for calling the TD. It's an infraction, but if I don't call attention to the infraction (e.g., you should call the TD if you disagree") then I am not obligated to call the TD if they don't, according to Law9: The Director should be summoned at once if attention is called to an irregularity." So I just say, "Let's continue, please." Since I am not inclined to teach opponents about the Laws (not my job), I believe this is proper procedure. Right or wrong, BLML? [Nige1] I think the anonymous ACBL member got it right: If you think your opponents have broken tempo, then, immediately ... - you should ask opponents to confirm your impression. - opponents should call the director if they dispute the tempo-break. - if opponents dispute the tempo-break but don't call the director then you should. If this really is the law then it can be restated clearly and simply. So I agree with Marv that it doesn't appear to be the law. But I think it should be the law. And I think it is the right way to behave, anyway. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 12 00:43:48 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:43:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AFB446F.1030902@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: In social chess games at the New York Chess Club in the 1940s, players disobeyed the serious tournament chess requirement of strict silence. In one such 1940s social chess game, a player advanced a pawn one square in front of his castled king (preventing a possible later back rank checkmate by a rook). When he did so, he announced "Luft!", the Yiddish word for "air". His opponent responded with an atrocious bilingual pun: "De luftibus non est disputandum." Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >And I think it is the right way to behave, anyway. Richard Hills: And I think it is the wrong way to behave, anyway. De gustibus non est disputandum. While Law 16B2 as currently written states that I "may" hassle and intimidate bunny opponents by sententiously Reserving My Rights, it is because of the word "may" -- "failure to do it is not wrong" -- that I have never once invoked Law 16B2 in my entire expert bridge career. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 12 04:16:56 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:16:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" Message-ID: <4AFB7E28.8060507@nhcc.net> Mike Flader's column in the November _ACBL Bulletin_ answers a question about insufficient bids. Though the column is not official, it's probably all we in the ACBL will get. :-( The main point of interest is that Mr. Flader says the TD is supposed to find out (away from the table) what the IB'er intended in order to rule. This is the same as the EBU/EBL guidance as far as I can tell. As to the rest of Mr. Flader's answer... well, what do you think? North opens 2H, and East bids 2C, which the Director determines was intended as strong, forcing, and artificial. What bids, if any, can East make without barring partner? 3M? 4m? 4M? 4NT, if that's defined as natural and stronger than 3NT? Five-level? Slams? Anyone who hasn't seen it care to guess Mr. Flader's answer? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 12 04:32:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:32:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Ave+ to offending side (was BIT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7379273B15FD4D24ABDEAD4C208EFBDB@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: +=+ Beyond any doubt the Director and the AC have one simple decision to make: Was there a BIT? If they decide 'yes' the result is put back to 5H making a number* of tricks; Both sides are given this score. If their answer is 'no', the table result stands for both sides. There are no other possibilities. The reported decision is not 'interesting', it is a farce. (*I think 12 rather than 11 is better.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Joseph Addison (1672-1719): "In all thy humours, whether grave or mellow, Thou'rt such a touchy, testy, pleasant fellow; Hast so much wit, and mirth, and spleen about thee, There is no living with thee, nor without thee." Richard Hills: In my splenetic opinion, if an AC perpetrates a farcically un- Lawful decision, then the Director in charge should order the AC to reconvene until the AC produces a Lawful decision. Alexander Pope (1688-1744), epigram describing Addison: "Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." Richard Hills: In the EBL case below, I faintly praise the TD for a correct initial ruling. But when the AC perpetrated a farcical decision to award Ave+ to the offending side, I civilly avoid sneering when the TD opted to become an accomplice after the fact by doing nothing to rectify the AC's unLawful ruling. EBU Appeals Casebook 2002, number 10: Appeals Committee: Nissan Rand (Chairman) Keith Stanley Liz McGowan European Bridge League Seniors Pairs Board no 15 Dealer South N/S vulnerable 62 QJT983 T98 54 KQT3 A974 AK62 7 762 A543 K3 J762 J85 54 KQJ AQT98 Basic systems: North-South play Acol with Multi East-West play Acol WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1NT X XX (1) Pass 2C (2) Pass 2H X 3C X 3H X Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted. Shows a long single-suiter: partner must bid 2C. (2) Alerted. Result at table: 3H doubled -2 by North, NS -500 Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: TD was called by South who queried the double over the 2H. South had asked what the double was before bidding 3C and was told penalties. West told the TD that their system was that if East had passed then double was for takeout. There was no evidence on either convention card of this system. West had previously been told after the redouble that North had a single suit. Director's ruling: Score assigned for both sides: 2H doubled -1 by North, NS -200 Details of ruling: The basis of the TD's ruling is as West had already been told that North had a single suit there is no way that West looking at AKxx could possibly have taken East's double as penalties. Also there was no evidence on the convention card that this was their system ([1997] Law 75 footnote). Appeal lodged by: East-West Director's comments: The TD has ruled on the basis that the TD is to presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Appeals Committee decision: Artificial score awarded: Average minus to N/S, average plus to E/W Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: The Committee did not want to rule against the TD's decision but felt NS -200 was too generous. The Committee decided to have a split score, 60% for E/W, 40% for N/S. EBU Laws & Ethics Committee comments: When an Appeals Committee gives an adjustment on a board where a result has been obtained at the table, and feels a single assigned score does not achieve equity, then EBU practice requires a weighted score comprising percentages of various results which can then be calculated by the scorers. It is not the correct method to give either side a score such as "60% of a top". It was particularly surprising that the Committee in this case had given the offending side 60%. It was noted that this particular appeal arose in the EBL/EBU Seniors Pairs at the Brighton Summer Congress, so the actual decision might have been following EBL practice rather than EBU practice. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 12 04:58:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:58:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AFB7E28.8060507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >As to the rest of Mr. Flader's answer... well, what do you think? > >North opens 2H, and East bids 2C, which the Director determines was >intended as strong, forcing, and artificial. What bids, if any, can >East make without barring partner? 3M? 4m? 4M? 4NT, if that's >defined as natural and stronger than 3NT? Five-level? Slams? > >Anyone who hasn't seen it care to guess Mr. Flader's answer? Richard Hills: Slams? I would think that only one slam, 7NT, is _necessarily_ "more precise" than a strong, forcing, and artificial 2C. So if East did elect to try the replacement call of 7NT, then West would no longer be required to "pass whenever it is his turn to call". Of course, in that case the only legal non-Pass call available to West would be a Redouble of an opponent's Double (unless South gets into the swing of things by also perpetrating an insufficient bid, in which case West could accept South's insufficient bid with a Law 27A call). Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Nov 12 08:30:34 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:30:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <4AFB7E28.8060507@nhcc.net> References: <4AFB7E28.8060507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: 2009/11/12 Steve Willner : > Mike Flader's column in the November _ACBL Bulletin_ answers a question > about insufficient bids. ?Though the column is not official, it's > probably all we in the ACBL will get. :-( The main point of interest is > that Mr. Flader says the TD is supposed to find out (away from the > table) what the IB'er intended in order to rule. ?This is the same as > the EBU/EBL guidance as far as I can tell. > > As to the rest of Mr. Flader's answer... well, what do you think? ?North > opens 2H, and East bids 2C, which the Director determines was intended > as strong, forcing, and artificial. ?What bids, if any, can East make > without barring partner? ?3M? ?4m? ?4M? ?4NT, if that's defined as > natural and stronger than 3NT? ?Five-level? ?Slams? ?Anyone who hasn't > seen it care to guess Mr. Flader's answer? Actually, I have no idea. But I really hope he won't allow a t/o double! > _______________________________________________ > 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 Nov 12 11:25:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:25:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide References: <802A8412B26441969F047D693A6DE34C@MARVLAPTOP> <4AFB446F.1030902@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B3BEA7C1820479CABD59D24AF54946B@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Guide > [Nige1] > I think the anonymous ACBL member got it right: > > If you think your opponents have broken tempo, then, immediately ... > - you should ask opponents to confirm your impression. > - opponents should call the director if they dispute the tempo-break. > - if opponents dispute the tempo-break but don't call the director then > you should. > > If this really is the law then it can be restated clearly and simply. > So I agree with Marv that it doesn't appear to be the law. > But I think it should be the law. > And I think it is the right way to behave, anyway. < +=+ I would say that if opponents dispute the alleged BIT and do not call the Director the complainant should call the Director. The opponents infract the law by not calling the Director and the Director should be called to deal with this. (Law 9B1) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 12 11:35:55 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:35:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Ave+ to offending side (was BIT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ave+ to offending side (was BIT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > > +=+ Beyond any doubt the Director and the AC have one > simple decision to make: > Was there a BIT? > If they decide 'yes' the result is put back to 5H making a > number* of tricks; Both sides are given this score. > If their answer is 'no', the table result stands for both sides. > There are no other possibilities. The reported decision > is not 'interesting', it is a farce. > (*I think 12 rather than 11 is better.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Joseph Addison (1672-1719): > > "In all thy humours, whether grave or mellow, > Thou'rt such a touchy, testy, pleasant fellow; > Hast so much wit, and mirth, and spleen about thee, > There is no living with thee, nor without thee." > +=+ It does occur to me that if in 6H there is only one sensible way to play the board but in 5H there is an alternative line that has its attractions and makes only eleven tricks, then a 12C1(c) adjustment may be considered. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 12 11:42:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:42:26 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 References: <10531545.1252704580802.JavaMail.root@ps28> Message-ID: <5F62FF1E357E43C080802C6ED279B502@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 > Grattan, you wrote: >>> >> +=+ I just wonder Marv if you haven't got a bee in the bonnet on >> this subject. The committee simply did not feel it was primarily a >> laws matter, so we looked and passed on. > > Actually I have a Chip on my shoulder :-) > > Marv > +=+ I am Martelly wounded. ;-) +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 12 12:27:41 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:27:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <4AFB0F6E.9000006@consolidated.net> References: <200911111555.HAA20380@mailhub.irvine.com> <4AFB0F6E.9000006@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <4AFBF12D.1050009@ulb.ac.be> Robert Park a ?crit : > Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> I think that if a player bids Blackwood, gets a responses, hesitates >> before setting the contract, and partner bids on, this is such an >> obvious violation of the rules that adjustment should be automatic. >> The only exceptions would be: >> >> (1) responder has a void; >> (2) responder made the wrong response, and can convince the director >> that his discovery of a missing keycard in his hand wasn't >> prompted by UI; >> (3) responder made a 0-or-3 response with three keycards, or something >> similar; >> (4) the pair is playing unusual methods where Blackwooder's "setting >> the contract" really does invite responder to go on in certain >> cases. Not that I've ever seen such methods being played. >> >> >> > Re (4): My standard agreement with my partners is that we are expected > to go on to slam with 3 or 4 keycards when asker signs off over a 0/3 or > 1/4 reply...on the grounds that partner should not have asked if 3 or 4 > keycards would not have been good news. I don't see why this would be an > "unusual method." > > FWIW, we protect ourselves from "hesitation" rulings by adding this note > to our convention card: "Responder goes on with a max." > AG : it wouldn't protect you because it's too easy to go on after an hesitation and point to the CC, and not to go on without an hesitation, not drawing attention to the CC. Many TDs would rule 'self-supporting statement'. 1S 2C 3S 4NT 5C(1) ...5S (2) 6S (3) (1) 0-3 (2) wonder whether 3 will be enough (3) after UI Responder might hold : K - Kx - Kxxx - KQJxxx and expect partner to go to 6 only with prime spades. The point is : everybody knows it's 3 here, because nobody would jump-repeat his suit lacking AK.(especially if 2S would be forcing, as it is nowadays). So, to bid 5S expecting partner to go to 6 with 3 is contradictory. BTW, bidding 4NT with : QJx - Kx - Kx - KQJxxx seems right. Facing 4, you go to slam (in NT) ; but in this case you'll bid 5S over 5C more spontaneously. Best regards Alain From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Nov 12 14:50:06 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:50:06 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <4AFB7E28.8060507@nhcc.net> References: <4AFB7E28.8060507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4AFC128E.7030701@yahoo.co.uk> [Steve Willner] Mike Flader's column in the November _ACBL Bulletin_ answers a question about insufficient bids. Though the column is not official, it's probably all we in the ACBL will get. :-( The main point of interest is that Mr. Flader says the TD is supposed to find out (away from the table) what the IB'er intended in order to rule. This is the same as the EBU/EBL guidance as far as I can tell. As to the rest of Mr. Flader's answer... well, what do you think? North opens 2H, and East bids 2C, which the Director determines was intended as strong, forcing, and artificial. What bids, if any, can East make without barring partner? 3M? 4m? 4M? 4NT, if that's defined as natural and stronger than 3NT? Five-level? Slams? Anyone who hasn't seen it care to guess Mr. Flader's answer? [Nigel] I suspect that East has been unintentionally economical with the truth. I assume that East made a normal 2C opening bid. For most players this is more restrictive than just "strong forcing and artificial". Strictly speaking a the meanings of a replacement call should be a subset of the (putative or intended) meanings of the insufficient bid. In practice, the WBF and Max Bavin seem to favour an even more liberal approach. Here, a director might permit almost any game or slam bid or any strong forcing call. Well *almost* any call. A bid like 4H or 5H or even 6H might be weak and pre-emptive, so not in the meaning subset. I haven't read Mr Flader's article but I guess that Mr Flader would also allow almost any game bid or slam-invitational bid, which would have a *narrower* meaning. IMO, all this shows the stupidity of allowing options (by either side) after an infraction. Unnecessary sophistication is a boon to secretary birds but a nuisance to ordinary players. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 12 16:45:07 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:45:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <4AFB0F6E.9000006@consolidated.net> References: <200911111555.HAA20380@mailhub.irvine.com> <4AFB0F6E.9000006@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <1F561526-F66E-4618-A42F-24618B7EA0FE@starpower.net> On Nov 11, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Robert Park wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> I think that if a player bids Blackwood, gets a responses, hesitates >> before setting the contract, and partner bids on, this is such an >> obvious violation of the rules that adjustment should be automatic. >> The only exceptions would be: >> >> (1) responder has a void; >> (2) responder made the wrong response, and can convince the director >> that his discovery of a missing keycard in his hand wasn't >> prompted by UI; >> (3) responder made a 0-or-3 response with three keycards, or >> something >> similar; >> (4) the pair is playing unusual methods where Blackwooder's "setting >> the contract" really does invite responder to go on in certain >> cases. Not that I've ever seen such methods being played. > > Re (4): My standard agreement with my partners is that we are expected > to go on to slam with 3 or 4 keycards when asker signs off over a > 0/3 or > 1/4 reply...on the grounds that partner should not have asked if 3 > or 4 > keycards would not have been good news. I don't see why this would > be an > "unusual method." > > FWIW, we protect ourselves from "hesitation" rulings by adding this > note > to our convention card: "Responder goes on with a max." This may not be an "unusual method", but it's a rather strange one. Surely a hand that needs three (or four) key cards to want to be in a slam will incur a disaster if it reaches the five-level opposite none (or one). For key-card Blackwood to be playable, you must observe the basic rule that you do not ask for key cards unless you are certain you will be able to disambiguate a zero-or-three or one-or-four reply, based on your holding and/or the auction to that point. As a wise old expert once told me, if you don't know to within three how many key cards your partner has, you have no business bidding Blackwood. But not everyone thinks about this in the heat of battle. It's not that uncommon for a player to realize, only after bidding 4NT and hearing the reply, that he's not all that certain which holding partner has, and is therefore not in a position to place the contract. All too often, that produces a noticeable huddle, followed by a raise to six from partner allegedly based on "I had the big one this time, pard". But when you ask the raiser why, if his partner was willing to play at the five-level opposite no key cards, he raised only to six, not to seven, with three of them, they can't answer. I would ask Bob the same question about his agreement. And some others: When he knows that partner cannot have zero and wants to play at the six-level, is he careful to "sign off" at the five-level in anticipation of the "automatic" raise to six? If partner bids six cheerfully and in tempo, do his methods require an equally "automatic" raise to seven with "the big one"? When he knows he wants to be in seven, does he bid only six, or is that an exception to "responder goes on". Shouldn't responder "automatically" correct seven of a suit to 7NT with three "extra" key cards? For that matter, shouldn't three "extra" key cards always make a grand the right contract if partner was prepared to play at the five or six level in an uncontested auction without them? I'm confident that Bob always bids consistently with the agreement that "responder goes on with a max", but IME there are those who do it only when "it feels right", purportedly based on their hand and the auction. Unless the asker *always* bids over the Blackwood reply on the presumption of the smaller number of possible key cards (even when he knows that such a holding isn't possible), and the responder *always* corrects on the assumption that the asker has done so, it's just another variety of that old-black-magic "hesitation Blackwood". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 12 17:03:10 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:03:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <200911112018.MAA23008@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200911112018.MAA23008@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Nov 11, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > David Grabiner wrote: > >> "Robert Park" writes: >> >>> Re (4): My standard agreement with my partners is that we are >>> expected >>> to go on to slam with 3 or 4 keycards when asker signs off over a >>> 0/3 or >>> 1/4 reply...on the grounds that partner should not have asked if >>> 3 or 4 >>> keycards would not have been good news. I don't see why this >>> would be an >>> "unusual method." >> >> This is covered by (3). With 4 keycards, responder must go on, as >> you don't use >> Blackwood if you aren't interested in slam when your siade has 4. >> With 3, >> responder must go on unless it is clear from the auction that he >> can't have 0 >> (he opened 2C or made a strong jump shift, for example). > > My feeling about this is that if you have 4 keycards, and partner > signs off after you make a 1-or-4 response, what the #@*^ was he doing > using Blackwood in the first place? Something must have gone wrong > somewhere. But this is just my ranting about bidding theory and has > nothing to do with the actual UI problem. It has everything to do with the actual UI problem. Don't apologize for taking the scoring table into account when ruling on a potential UI infraction. It doesn't sound at all unreasonable to question the credibility of a pair whose claim of innocence rests on the assertion that they choose to play methods designed to get them to the five- level missing three aces. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Thu Nov 12 17:14:44 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:14:44 -0800 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:03:10 EST." Message-ID: <200911121602.IAA00962@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > On Nov 11, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > David Grabiner wrote: > > > >> "Robert Park" writes: > >> > >>> Re (4): My standard agreement with my partners is that we are > >>> expected > >>> to go on to slam with 3 or 4 keycards when asker signs off over a > >>> 0/3 or > >>> 1/4 reply...on the grounds that partner should not have asked if > >>> 3 or 4 > >>> keycards would not have been good news. I don't see why this > >>> would be an > >>> "unusual method." > >> > >> This is covered by (3). With 4 keycards, responder must go on, as > >> you don't use > >> Blackwood if you aren't interested in slam when your siade has 4. > >> With 3, > >> responder must go on unless it is clear from the auction that he > >> can't have 0 > >> (he opened 2C or made a strong jump shift, for example). > > > > My feeling about this is that if you have 4 keycards, and partner > > signs off after you make a 1-or-4 response, what the #@*^ was he doing > > using Blackwood in the first place? Something must have gone wrong > > somewhere. But this is just my ranting about bidding theory and has > > nothing to do with the actual UI problem. > > It has everything to do with the actual UI problem. Don't apologize > for taking the scoring table into account when ruling on a potential > UI infraction. It doesn't sound at all unreasonable to question the > credibility of a pair whose claim of innocence rests on the assertion > that they choose to play methods designed to get them to the five- > level missing three aces. Unfortunately, these methods *are* more or less the standard way to play, even though they don't really make much sense. At least, I think a lot of people have learned it that way. It wouldn't be the only time in bridge history that someone has invented and popularized a method without really thinking it through. I do think Kantar once commented, in one of his books (not his books on RKC), that if partner asks you for key cards and you have four of them, then the wheels have come off. A bit harsh, maybe, but just a tiny bit. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 12 17:33:39 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:33:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <4AFB7E28.8060507@nhcc.net> References: <4AFB7E28.8060507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:16 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > Mike Flader's column in the November _ACBL Bulletin_ answers a > question > about insufficient bids. Though the column is not official, it's > probably all we in the ACBL will get. :-( The main point of > interest is > that Mr. Flader says the TD is supposed to find out (away from the > table) what the IB'er intended in order to rule. This is the same as > the EBU/EBL guidance as far as I can tell. > > As to the rest of Mr. Flader's answer... well, what do you think? > North > opens 2H, and East bids 2C, which the Director determines was intended > as strong, forcing, and artificial. What bids, if any, can East make > without barring partner? 3M? 4m? 4M? 4NT, if that's defined as > natural and stronger than 3NT? Five-level? Slams? Anyone who hasn't > seen it care to guess Mr. Flader's answer? In theory, the answer depends on the OS's methods, but it's almost certain that there is no non-barring bid available. But this does raise the question of whether L27B1(b) might be extended in the future to cover calls other than those that, by themselves, "ha[ve] the same meaning... or a more precise meaning". In particular, what about (a) two-step sequences that have the same or a more precise meaning when completed (such as a 3H cuebid here, presumptively asking for a stopper, but showing a strong two-bid in spades after a 4S correction of the reply), or (b) pure asking bids with no descriptive "meaning" and no discretion granted responder (such as 4NT here, asking for aces)? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 12 19:04:22 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:04:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <1F561526-F66E-4618-A42F-24618B7EA0FE@starpower.net> References: <1F561526-F66E-4618-A42F-24618B7EA0FE@starpower.net> <200911111555.HAA20380@mailhub.irvine.com> <4AFB0F6E.9000006@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <20865998.1258049062282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau > Surely a hand that needs three (or four) key cards to want to be in a > slam will incur a disaster if it reaches the five-level opposite none > (or one). > > For key-card Blackwood to be playable, you must observe the basic > rule that you do not ask for key cards unless you are certain you > will be able to disambiguate a zero-or-three or one-or-four reply, > based on your holding and/or the auction to that point. As a wise > old expert once told me, if you don't know to within three how many > key cards your partner has, you have no business bidding Blackwood. > > But not everyone thinks about this in the heat of battle. It's not > that uncommon for a player to realize, only after bidding 4NT and > hearing the reply, that he's not all that certain which holding > partner has, and is therefore not in a position to place the > contract. All too often, that produces a noticeable huddle, followed > by a raise to six from partner allegedly based on "I had the big one > this time, pard". But when you ask the raiser why, if his partner > was willing to play at the five-level opposite no key cards, he > raised only to six, not to seven, with three of them, they can't > answer. I would ask Bob the same question about his agreement. And > some others: > > When he knows that partner cannot have zero and wants to play at the > six-level, is he careful to "sign off" at the five-level in > anticipation of the "automatic" raise to six? If partner bids six > cheerfully and in tempo, do his methods require an equally > "automatic" raise to seven with "the big one"? When he knows he > wants to be in seven, does he bid only six, or is that an exception > to "responder goes on". Shouldn't responder "automatically" correct > seven of a suit to 7NT with three "extra" key cards? For that > matter, shouldn't three "extra" key cards always make a grand the > right contract if partner was prepared to play at the five or six > level in an uncontested auction without them? > > I'm confident that Bob always bids consistently with the agreement > that "responder goes on with a max", but IME there are those who do > it only when "it feels right", purportedly based on their hand and > the auction. Unless the asker *always* bids over the Blackwood reply > on the presumption of the smaller number of possible key cards (even > when he knows that such a holding isn't possible), and the responder > *always* corrects on the assumption that the asker has done so, it's > just another variety of that old-black-magic "hesitation Blackwood". You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, and decide that 4NT is your best option. Opener responds 5D, showing 0 or 3. Do you bid 7S now? Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From adam at irvine.com Thu Nov 12 19:13:15 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:13:15 -0800 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:04:22 +0100." <20865998.1258049062282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <200911121800.KAA02415@mailhub.irvine.com> Thomas wrote: > You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. > Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, > and decide that 4NT is your best option. Well, there's your problem right there. If partner has no aces you're already one level too high. So how can this be the best option? Although I generally agree with Eric---that if you are bidding Blackwood and can't tell whether partner has 0 or 3 then you shouldn't be bidding Blackwood---I'll allow that there are auctions in which 4NT *may* be the best even though you might not be able to tell the difference between 0 and 3; mostly this is where the auction gets cramped. So you'd have a better argument if you had made your RHO jump to 4C after partner's 1S opening. Now 4NT really may be least bad. -- Adam From blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 12 19:48:45 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:48:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <200911121800.KAA02415@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200911121800.KAA02415@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <33390954.1258051725782.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Adam Beneschan > Thomas wrote: > > > You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. > > Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, > > and decide that 4NT is your best option. > > Well, there's your problem right there. If partner has no aces you're > already one level too high. So how can this be the best option? Of course you can postpone the inevitable, but how are you gone find out that partner has less than two aces without using Blackwood? Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 12 21:23:49 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:23:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Matchpoint Pairs, Thursday 1st April 2010 Brd: 1 Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S 1H 1D 1C At this point you, the Director, are summoned. What ruling do you make? What ruling do you consider making? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at irvine.com Thu Nov 12 21:32:34 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:32:34 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:23:49 +1100." Message-ID: <200911122020.MAA04274@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Matchpoint Pairs, > Thursday 1st April 2010 > > Brd: 1 > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 1H 1D > 1C > > At this point you, the Director, are summoned. > > What ruling do you make? > What ruling do you consider making? I think the first step is to take North away from the table and ask for a description of his 1S bid. Then I take East away from the table and ask whether he missed the 1S opening bid or thought he was overcalling over a club; likewise I take South away and ask whether he thought his bid was the opening bid. Then I take West away from the table and ask whether he missed the other players' bids or whether he was planning to overcall and just bid insufficiently, and I also ask whether the 1C bid was artificial or not. Then, while all four players are away from the table, I signal for four *real* bridge players to come in and sit down at the table, players who are there to play bridge and not mess with the Director's head and who understand the difference between Christmas and April Fools' day. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Nov 12 21:33:31 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:33:31 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Ave+ to offending side (was BIT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AFC711B.4020309@yahoo.co.uk> [richard.hills quoting EBU ruling] The basis of the TD's ruling is as West had already been told that North had a single suit there is no way that West looking at AKxx could possibly have taken East's double as penalties. [Nigel] IMO, this is vaguely like Marv's tempo-break case. West may indeed have misexplained his partnership agreement but, IMO, neither he nor the director should consider that his actual hand has any bearing on the matter. For example, as here, when his holdings make it nearly *certain* that partner (or an opponent) cannot have his bid, he must still reveal his *partnership agreement*. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Nov 12 21:38:57 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:38:57 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <4AFC128E.7030701@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4AFB7E28.8060507@nhcc.net> <4AFC128E.7030701@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4AFC7261.6090702@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel with a mistake snipped] I suspect that East has been unintentionally economical with the truth. I assume that East made a normal 2C opening bid. For most players this is more restrictive than just "strong forcing and artificial". Strictly speaking a the meanings of a replacement call should be a subset of the (putative or intended) meanings of the insufficient bid. In practice, the WBF and Max Bavin seem to favour an even more liberal approach. Here, a director might permit almost any game or slam bid or any strong forcing call. Well *almost* any call. A bid that might be weak or pre-emptive might be barred becauss it's not in the meaning subset. I haven't read Mr Flader's article but I guess that Mr Flader would also allow almost any game bid or slam-invitational bid, which would have a *narrower* meaning. IMO, all this shows the stupidity of allowing options (by either side) after an infraction. Such unnecessary sophistication is a boon to secretary birds but an irritation to ordinary players. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 12 21:43:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:43:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] BIT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <33390954.1258051725782.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >>>You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. >>>Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, >>>and decide that 4NT is your best option. Adam Beneschan: >>Well, there's your problem right there. If partner >>has no aces you're already one level too high. So how >>can this be the best option? Thomas Dehn: >Of course you can postpone the inevitable, but how >are you going to find out that partner has less than >two aces without using Blackwood? Richard Hills: By not playing a "somewhat basic system" and instead adopting the Symmetric Relay System (notes emailed on request). Or by playing a basic Aussie system where a 1-of-a-suit opening and a 3NT jump response is Blackwood. Or by playing an even more basic system known as Chameleon Gerber (formerly popular in my home town of Hobart, Tasmania) whereby 4C is either Gerber or not Gerber, depending upon the length of the hesitation before 4C is bid. Jean Racine (1639-1699), French tragedian: "She floats, she hesitates; in a word, she's a woman." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 12 21:51:10 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:51:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7981626.1258059070876.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Matchpoint Pairs, > Thursday 1st April 2010 > > Brd: 1 > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 1H 1D > 1C > > At this point you, the Director, are summoned. > > What ruling do you make? This being April 1, they are joking. I cancel all four bids. Not exactly covered by law, but practical. > What ruling do you consider making? Choose between A. Let the Secretary Bird figure this out (that should teach them) and B Use L12C 1(d) to award an artificial adjusted score, N/S minus one drink, E/W minus one drink. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From jkljkl at gmx.de Thu Nov 12 21:54:11 2009 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (Stefan Filonardi) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:54:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AFC75F3.2030507@gmx.de> Hello Richard, richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Matchpoint Pairs, > Thursday 1st April 2010 > > Brd: 1 > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 1H 1D > 1C > > At this point you, the Director, are summoned. > > What ruling do you make? > What ruling do you consider making? If the 4 players wear orange T-Shirts and have a funny accent, I would accept their dutch auction and rule no infraction. The alternative is to not accept to direct a game on a 1st of April. ciao stefan From jeff.ford at gmail.com Thu Nov 12 21:55:37 2009 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:55:37 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9dcd40e70911121255y112a8824y19170ccb3005a7b0@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:23 PM, wrote: > > South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Matchpoint Pairs, > Thursday 1st April 2010 > > Brd: 1 > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ? 1S ? ? ? ?1H ? ? ? ?1D > 1C > > At this point you, the Director, are summoned. > > What ruling do you make? > What ruling do you consider making? Couldn't they have waited to call me until after north bid 0NT at his second turn? Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA From bobpark at consolidated.net Thu Nov 12 22:02:13 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:02:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <200911121800.KAA02415@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200911121800.KAA02415@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4AFC77D5.8080304@consolidated.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: > Thomas wrote: > > >> You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. >> Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, >> and decide that 4NT is your best option. >> > > Well, there's your problem right there. If partner has no aces you're > already one level too high. So how can this be the best option? > > Although I generally agree with Eric---that if you are bidding > Blackwood and can't tell whether partner has 0 or 3 then you shouldn't > be bidding Blackwood---I'll allow that there are auctions in which 4NT > *may* be the best even though you might not be able to tell the > difference between 0 and 3; mostly this is where the auction gets > cramped. So you'd have a better argument if you had made your RHO > jump to 4C after partner's 1S opening. Now 4NT really may be least > bad. > > -- Adam > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > And then there are the various Minorwood and Kickback auctions where an ambiguous 4-level reply to a keycard ask is also possible. My partner & I had one last week. This seems to tear at least a minor hole in Eric's argument. --bp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091112/f370f802/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 12 22:20:07 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:20:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002401ca63dd$e8ff5410$bafdfc30$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Matchpoint Pairs, Thursday 1st April 2010 > > Brd: 1 > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 1H 1D > 1C > > At this point you, the Director, are summoned. > > What ruling do you make? > What ruling do you consider making? > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 How come they called in rotation? Shouldn't the calling sequence have been N - W - S - E ??? Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 12 22:35:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:35:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200911122020.MAA04274@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: >>South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Matchpoint Pairs, >>Thursday 1st April 2010 >> >>Brd: 1 >>Dlr: North >>Vul: Nil >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1S 1H 1D >>1C >> >>At this point you, the Director, are summoned. >> >>What ruling do you make? >>What ruling do you consider making? Adam Beneschan: >I think the first step is to take North away from the table and ask >for a description of his 1S bid. Then I take East away from the >table and ask whether he missed the 1S opening bid or thought he was >overcalling over a club; likewise I take South away and ask whether >he thought his bid was the opening bid. Then I take West away from >the table and ask whether he missed the other players' bids or >whether he was planning to overcall and just bid insufficiently, and >I also ask whether the 1C bid was artificial or not. Nigel Guthrie: >>>I would substantiate my views with more data, if I could. Richard Hills: So my first step is to look at the hand record. The complete deal -> AT62 J73 Q84 K95 J73 K95 Q84 AT62 K95 J73 AT62 Q84 Q84 K95 AT62 J73 Therefore I have an easy-peasy ruling under Law 6D2: "Unless the purpose of the tournament is the replay of past deals no result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck..." Adam Beneschan: >Then, while all four players are away from the table, I signal for >four *real* bridge players to come in and sit down at the table, >players who are there to play bridge and not mess with the Director's >head and who understand the difference between Christmas and April >Fools' day. Henry Wadworth Longfellow (1807-1882): Life is real! Life is earnest! And the grave is not its goal; Dust thou art, to dust returnest, Was not spoken of the soul. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, unreal blmler -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 12 22:47:36 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:47:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <20865998.1258049062282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <1F561526-F66E-4618-A42F-24618B7EA0FE@starpower.net> <200911111555.HAA20380@mailhub.irvine.com> <4AFB0F6E.9000006@consolidated.net> <20865998.1258049062282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Nov 12, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau > >> Surely a hand that needs three (or four) key cards to want to be in a >> slam will incur a disaster if it reaches the five-level opposite none >> (or one). >> >> For key-card Blackwood to be playable, you must observe the basic >> rule that you do not ask for key cards unless you are certain you >> will be able to disambiguate a zero-or-three or one-or-four reply, >> based on your holding and/or the auction to that point. As a wise >> old expert once told me, if you don't know to within three how many >> key cards your partner has, you have no business bidding Blackwood. >> >> But not everyone thinks about this in the heat of battle. It's not >> that uncommon for a player to realize, only after bidding 4NT and >> hearing the reply, that he's not all that certain which holding >> partner has, and is therefore not in a position to place the >> contract. All too often, that produces a noticeable huddle, followed >> by a raise to six from partner allegedly based on "I had the big one >> this time, pard". But when you ask the raiser why, if his partner >> was willing to play at the five-level opposite no key cards, he >> raised only to six, not to seven, with three of them, they can't >> answer. I would ask Bob the same question about his agreement. And >> some others: >> >> When he knows that partner cannot have zero and wants to play at the >> six-level, is he careful to "sign off" at the five-level in >> anticipation of the "automatic" raise to six? If partner bids six >> cheerfully and in tempo, do his methods require an equally >> "automatic" raise to seven with "the big one"? When he knows he >> wants to be in seven, does he bid only six, or is that an exception >> to "responder goes on". Shouldn't responder "automatically" correct >> seven of a suit to 7NT with three "extra" key cards? For that >> matter, shouldn't three "extra" key cards always make a grand the >> right contract if partner was prepared to play at the five or six >> level in an uncontested auction without them? >> >> I'm confident that Bob always bids consistently with the agreement >> that "responder goes on with a max", but IME there are those who do >> it only when "it feels right", purportedly based on their hand and >> the auction. Unless the asker *always* bids over the Blackwood reply >> on the presumption of the smaller number of possible key cards (even >> when he knows that such a holding isn't possible), and the responder >> *always* corrects on the assumption that the asker has done so, it's >> just another variety of that old-black-magic "hesitation Blackwood". > > You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. > Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, > and decide that 4NT is your best option. Sorry, Thomas. You might stipulate that I have been forced to take over in mid-auction from a rank novice who has already bid 4NT with that hand, but you cannot make me "decide that 4NT is [my] best option" -- even if I'm pretty confident that I can get away with disambiguating the position for partner by means of a well-timed huddle. I do not believe that my "best option" involves playing at the five-level off three cashing aces -- or that Thomas does either. Indeed, 4NT would be a ridiculous call. I can easily show a game force in spades with slam interest, knowing that partner, who has played the game at least once before, will treat an at most 13-HCP hand with a jack-high trump suit and no aces as a bad hand and make suitable discouraging noises, but will recognize any hand with three aces as worth at least one stab at a cooperating cuebid. Only when he shows an ace (or extra values for his opening bid, which must mean he has one) can I be confident of safety at the five-level and so sensibly bid above 4S. > Opener responds 5D, showing 0 or 3. > Do you bid 7S now? More likely 7NT, but I don't think that's what Thomas was asking. I might be off three key cards, but I chose to ignore that possibility when I bid 4NT over 1S. You are vulnerable, and pick up Axx/x/Axxxx/Axxx. You open 1D, partner bids 2H (strong jump shift), you bid 3C, partner bids 4NT (RKC for hearts), you bid 5D (0 or 3), and partner bids 5S (puppet to 5NT). Do you bid 7NT now? If partner holds KQJ/QJ109/KQJ/KQJ, he has bid perfectly, if somewhat creatively. He knows you must hold at least three key cards for your opening bid, and can place the contract at the right number of NT opposite any response, provided only that he can trust you not to disturb the contract he chooses. But if you might raise 5H with three keys, or 6H to seven with four, he would be stuck. Unless he knows that a fast signoff, made with alacrity, will not fetch the same "automatic" raise that an uncertain one would have. (Unlikely example, to be sure, but no more so than Thomas's.) Even in a "somewhat basic system", my "best option" is unlikley to be one that asks my partner to choose between the five level down one and the six level cold for seven. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Nov 12 23:01:06 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:01:06 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction References: <200911122020.MAA04274@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001501ca63e3$b8e28760$2401a8c0@p41600> This idiotic scenario has long been a part of td training localy. Answer? Carry on you twits.... Pas de problem boyo ********************** Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say.. ********************** > > Brd: 1 > > Dlr: North > > Vul: Nil > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- 1S 1H 1D > > 1C > > > > At this point you, the Director, are summoned. > > > > What ruling do you make? > > What ruling do you consider making? > > I think the first step is to take North away from the table and ask > for a description of his 1S bid. Then I take East away from the table > and ask whether he missed the 1S opening bid or thought he was > overcalling over a club; likewise I take South away and ask whether he > thought his bid was the opening bid. Then I take West away from the > table and ask whether he missed the other players' bids or whether he > was planning to overcall and just bid insufficiently, and I also ask > whether the 1C bid was artificial or not. Then, while all four > players are away from the table, I signal for four *real* bridge > players to come in and sit down at the table, players who are there to > play bridge and not mess with the Director's head and who understand > the difference between Christmas and April Fools' day. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 12 23:24:06 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:24:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] BIT Message-ID: <32317504.1258064646179.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau > On Nov 12, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Eric Landau > > You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. > > Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, > > and decide that 4NT is your best option. > > Sorry, Thomas. You might stipulate that I have been forced to take > over in mid-auction from a rank novice who has already bid 4NT with > that hand, but you cannot make me "decide that 4NT is [my] best > option" -- even if I'm pretty confident that I can get away with > disambiguating the position for partner by means of a well-timed > huddle. I do not believe that my "best option" involves playing at > the five-level off three cashing aces -- or that Thomas does either. > > Indeed, 4NT would be a ridiculous call. I can easily show a game > force in spades with slam interest, knowing that partner, who has > played the game at least once before, will treat an at most 13-HCP > hand with a jack-high trump suit and no aces as a bad hand and make > suitable discouraging noises, but will recognize any hand with three > aces as worth at least one stab at a cooperating cuebid. Only when > he shows an ace (or extra values for his opening bid, which must mean > he has one) can I be confident of safety at the five-level and so > sensibly bid above 4S. Of course you can bid conservatively, and stop in 4S when partner does not want to be encouraged by whatever move you make. That prevents going down at the five level with three aces missing, or two missing aces and some ruff. But it also misses some cold slams. It is pretty hard to squeeze out a cuebid of somebody who opened a five card 1S on AJxxxx,xx,AJx,xx or AJxxx,xx,Qxx,Axx. > > Opener responds 5D, showing 0 or 3. > > Do you bid 7S now? > > More likely 7NT, but I don't think that's what Thomas was asking. I > might be off three key cards, but I chose to ignore that possibility > when I bid 4NT over 1S. > > You are vulnerable, and pick up Axx/x/Axxxx/Axxx. You open 1D, > partner bids 2H (strong jump shift), you bid 3C, partner bids 4NT > (RKC for hearts), you bid 5D (0 or 3), and partner bids 5S (puppet to > 5NT). Do you bid 7NT now? Certainly not. If I play that I don't bid 5NT with three aces, I bid 6C with three aces, not 7NT. > If partner holds KQJ/QJ109/KQJ/KQJ, he has bid perfectly, if somewhat > creatively. He knows you must hold at least three key cards for your > opening bid, and can place the contract at the right number of NT > opposite any response, provided only that he can trust you not to > disturb the contract he chooses. I'd rather play 6D opposite that collection. Not what I would call "bid perfectly". Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 12 23:57:45 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:57:45 -0000 Subject: [BLML] BIT References: <200911121800.KAA02415@mailhub.irvine.com> <33390954.1258051725782.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8A677E8BBAE84F3C95801E7246E157FD@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] BIT Adam Beneschan > Thomas wrote: > > > You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. > > Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, > > and decide that 4NT is your best option. > > Well, there's your problem right there. If partner has no > aces you're already one level too high. So how can this > be the best option? Of course you can postpone the inevitable, but how are you gone find out that partner has less than two aces without using Blackwood? Thomas +=+ I would have tried a two-over-one bid, probably in clubs, and then a cue bid; if partner with Aces cannot get excited he must be senile. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 13 00:53:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:53:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501ca63e3$b8e28760$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: "Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say." Larry Bennett: >This idiotic scenario has long been a part of td training locally. >Answer? Carry on you twits.... >Pas de problem boyo 2007 Law 27A1: "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls." Richard Hills: A more nuanced view is that East's insufficient bid of 1H was accepted when South called. South's insufficient bid of 1D was accepted when West called. And West's insufficient bid of 1C may or may not be accepted by North. Perhaps the 2018 edition of the Lawbook should contain -> 2018 Law 27A1: "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted by a sufficient call in rotation. If an insufficient bid by one side is followed by an insufficient bid and/or call out of rotation by the other side, then ..... " Any suggestions? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Nov 13 01:56:35 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:56:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <4AFB7E28.8060507@nhcc.net> References: <4AFB7E28.8060507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <3155E878-A025-44C2-A400-C37011C87CB3@btinternet.com> >On 12 Nov 2009, at 03:16, Steve Willner wrote: >( The main point of interest is >that Mr. Flader says the TD is supposed to find out (away from the >table) what the IB'er intended in order to rule. This is the same as >the EBU/EBL guidance as far as I can tell. Not exactly. The EBU/EBL guidance is to take the player away from the table if L12B1b seems likely to come in to play - not in all cases. >As to the rest of Mr. Flader's answer... well, what do you think? North >opens 2H, and East bids 2C, which the Director determines was intended >as strong, forcing, and artificial. What bids, if any, can East make >without barring partner? If the partnership happened to be playing that 3H is a GF artificial bid, then that should be allowed. I don't suppose many do. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 13 02:05:31 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:05:31 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <0E13731DFFCA404FA30CF0DFFD960860@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Antipodean auction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 2007 Law 27A1: > > "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the > option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls." > > Richard Hills: > > A more nuanced view is that East's insufficient bid of 1H was > accepted when South called. South's insufficient bid of 1D was > accepted when West called. And West's insufficient bid of 1C may > or may not be accepted by North. > +=+ Yes. There is nothing in 27A1 requiring the next player's call to be legal. (But if North does not accept the 1C bid will the Director have the problem of deciding whether it was made as an overcall or as a response?) ;-) ~ G ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Nov 13 03:42:33 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:42:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <4AFC5F6D.4030405@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AFC5F6D.4030405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AFCC799.9080703@nhcc.net> >> North >> opens 2H, and East bids 2C, which the Director determines was intended >> as strong, forcing, and artificial. (For Nigel: perhaps there are detailed agreements, but they don't seem relevant. If you think it matters, just assume the usual ones in the ACBL: 22+ if balanced or a strong hand including defensive values with 8.5+ playing tricks in a major or 9.5+ in a minor.) > From: Eric Landau > In theory, the answer depends on the OS's methods, but it's almost > certain that there is no non-barring bid available. That was Mr. Flader's answer, but I don't understand it. In fact, I'm mystified by it. Why should 4NT (natural) bar partner, for example? Doesn't that show about 22+ balanced (maybe more!) or the equivalent in playing tricks? What information does the 2C IB reveal that isn't included in 4NT? How about higher notrump bids, assuming they are all natural? What hand bids one of those now but wouldn't have opened 2C? Similarly, I'd allow 4S or higher spade bids and 5m or higher in a minor. I'd consider allowing heart bids but would, like Eric, want to know about agreements. I considered whether to allow 3S or 4m but probably wouldn't; I think 2C shows more strength than these bids normally do. So why am I wrong? From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Nov 13 04:15:34 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:15:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] BIT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <33390954.1258051725782.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <200911130315.nAD3FXl0015264@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 07:43 AM 13/11/2009, you wrote: >Thomas Dehn: > > >>>You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. > >>>Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, > >>>and decide that 4NT is your best option. > >Adam Beneschan: > > >>Well, there's your problem right there. If partner > >>has no aces you're already one level too high. So how > >>can this be the best option? > >Thomas Dehn: > > >Of course you can postpone the inevitable, but how > >are you going to find out that partner has less than > >two aces without using Blackwood? > >Richard Hills: > >By not playing a "somewhat basic system" and instead >adopting the Symmetric Relay System (notes emailed on >request). > >Or by playing a basic Aussie system where a 1-of-a-suit >opening and a 3NT jump response is Blackwood. > >Or by playing an even more basic system known as >Chameleon Gerber (formerly popular in my home town of >Hobart, Tasmania) whereby 4C is either Gerber or not >Gerber, depending upon the length of the hesitation >before 4C is bid. I remember it well. Partner of the 4C bidder was expected to alert saying "I am taking it as Gerber", Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 13 04:19:15 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:19:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Ave+ to offending side (was BIT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AFC711B.4020309@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: King's Regulations (Army), Report of the Orderly Sergeant to the Officer of the Day: "All present and correct." Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >West may indeed have misexplained his partnership agreement but, IMO, >neither he nor the director should consider that his actual hand has >any bearing on the matter. > >For example, as here, when his holdings make it nearly *certain* that >partner (or an opponent) cannot have his bid, he must still reveal his >*partnership agreement*. Richard Hills: Correct. It sometimes works the other way around too, when a misexplanation coincides with partner's cards because pard has made the corresponding misbid. And behind screens one has to describe the partnership understanding of one's own calls. So, behind screens, if one misbids, one usually gives MI which accurately describes one's own cards, but bears no resemblance to one's agreed methods. On the rare occasions that damage is caused by such unusual MI, the TD and the AC have no choice but to adjust the score (in favour of the non- offending side, not in favour of the offending side). Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 13 06:20:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:20:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AFCC799.9080703@nhcc.net> Message-ID: >>North opens 2H, and East bids 2C, which the Director determines >>was intended as strong, forcing, and artificial. World champion (at both bridge and backgammon) Billy Eisenberg: "If I open 2C, and the opponents bid a slam, they're not making." Steve Willner: >..... >Similarly, I'd allow 4S or higher spade bids >..... >So why am I wrong? Richard Hills: An overcall of 4S may be a sacrifice against 7H, so is less precise than an Eisenberg 2C opening bid. An overcall of 5S may be a sacrifice against 7H, so is less precise than an Eisenberg 2C opening bid. An overcall of 6S may be a sacrifice against 7H, so is less precise than an Eisenberg 2C opening bid. An overcall of 7S may be a sacrifice against 7H, so is less precise than an Eisenberg 2C opening bid. An overcall of 8S may be lead-directing, but Law 26 might not apply. Law 38D (Bid of More Than Seven): "Law 23 may apply and the lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, except that if the offender's LHO had called subsequent to the infraction and before rectification there is no recourse to these Laws." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Fri Nov 13 07:37:14 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:37:14 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] BIT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26220656.1258094234379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Thomas Dehn: > > >>>You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. > >>>Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, > >>>and decide that 4NT is your best option. > > Adam Beneschan: > > >>Well, there's your problem right there. If partner > >>has no aces you're already one level too high. So how > >>can this be the best option? > > Thomas Dehn: > > >Of course you can postpone the inevitable, but how > >are you going to find out that partner has less than > >two aces without using Blackwood? > > Richard Hills: > > By not playing a "somewhat basic system" and instead > adopting the Symmetric Relay System (notes emailed on > request). Unfortunately, switching to Symmetric Relay in the middle of an auction is not allowed. > Or by playing a basic Aussie system where a 1-of-a-suit > opening and a 3NT jump response is Blackwood. > > Or by playing an even more basic system known as > Chameleon Gerber (formerly popular in my home town of > Hobart, Tasmania) whereby 4C is either Gerber or not > Gerber, depending upon the length of the hesitation > before 4C is bid. Both are still some sort of Blackwood. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From blml at arcor.de Fri Nov 13 07:49:23 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:49:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <8A677E8BBAE84F3C95801E7246E157FD@Mildred> References: <8A677E8BBAE84F3C95801E7246E157FD@Mildred> <200911121800.KAA02415@mailhub.irvine.com> <33390954.1258051725782.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <21850687.1258094963772.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Grattan > Adam Beneschan > > Thomas wrote: > > > > > You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. > > > Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, > > > and decide that 4NT is your best option. > > > > Well, there's your problem right there. If partner has no > > aces you're already one level too high. So how can this > > be the best option? > > Of course you can postpone the inevitable, but how > are you gone find out that partner has less than two > aces without using Blackwood? > > > Thomas > > +=+ I would have tried a two-over-one bid, probably in clubs, and > then a cue bid; if partner with Aces cannot get excited he must be > senile. Sure, you can try lots of approaches like that. But are they on average more successful than a simple blackwood? If partner has a rotten minimum like AJxxx,Qxx,Axx,xx, that 2C bid plus subsequent cuebid might not be sufficient to get partner to cuebid that DA. If partner does get excited, the way he gets excited might take away your ability to check for missing aces. Or opponents find a fit and get in your way. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Nov 13 09:02:48 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:02:48 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <4AFCC799.9080703@nhcc.net> References: <4AFC5F6D.4030405@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AFCC799.9080703@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <346EB5F3-87CF-4488-A6E8-562B12531C76@btinternet.com> On 13 Nov 2009, at 02:42, Steve Willner wrote: > Why should 4NT (natural) bar partner, for example? Does anyone play this as natural? I'd expect it to show a strong minor two-suiter. > Doesn't that show about 22+ balanced (maybe more!) or the > equivalent in > playing tricks? What information does the 2C IB reveal that isn't > included in 4NT? How about higher notrump bids, assuming they are all > natural? What hand bids one of those now but wouldn't have opened 2C? > > Similarly, I'd allow 4S or higher spade bids and 5m or higher in a > minor. I'd consider allowing heart bids but would, like Eric, want to > know about agreements. I considered whether to allow 3S or 4m but > probably wouldn't; I think 2C shows more strength than these bids > normally do. I think 4S, 5C & 5D don't show as much as a 2C opener. > > So why am I wrong? From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 13 09:25:50 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:25:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AFD180E.3070407@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Matchpoint Pairs, > Thursday 1st April 2010 > > Brd: 1 > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 1H 1D > 1C > > At this point you, the Director, are summoned. > > What ruling do you make? the correct one. > What ruling do you consider making? April fool ! redeal please ! (or vice versa) > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 13 09:37:17 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:37:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Antipodean auction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AFD1ABD.8080801@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > South Canberra Bridge Club Christmas Matchpoint Pairs, > Thursday 1st April 2010 > Christmas in Winter? What a crazy idea! Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 13 11:31:55 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:31:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BIT In-Reply-To: <20865998.1258049062282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <1F561526-F66E-4618-A42F-24618B7EA0FE@starpower.net> <200911111555.HAA20380@mailhub.irvine.com> <4AFB0F6E.9000006@consolidated.net> <20865998.1258049062282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4AFD359B.70600@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > You are vulnerable, and pick up KQxxx,AKQJxx,x,x. > Partner opens 1S. You play a somewhat basic system, > and decide that 4NT is your best option. > Opener responds 5D, showing 0 or 3. > Do you bid 7S now? > > AG : nope. I bid 5S without a second of hesitation. Partner will correct holding three. Hands on which some might hesit aren't these, but rather those where exactly one key is missing, and that's the point. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Nov 13 14:23:41 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:23:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <346EB5F3-87CF-4488-A6E8-562B12531C76@btinternet.com> References: <4AFC5F6D.4030405@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AFCC799.9080703@nhcc.net> <346EB5F3-87CF-4488-A6E8-562B12531C76@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4AFD5DDD.20501@yahoo.co.uk> [Mike Flader's column in the November _ACBL Bulletin_] North opens 2H, and East bids 2C, which the Director determines was intended as strong, forcing, and artificial. [Steve Willner] Why should 4NT (natural) bar partner, for example? Doesn't that show about 22+ balanced (maybe more!) or the equivalent in playing tricks? What information does the 2C IB reveal that isn't included in 4NT? How about higher notrump bids, assuming they are all natural? What hand bids one of those now but wouldn't have opened 2C? [Gordon Rainsford] Does anyone play this as natural? I'd expect it to show a strong minor two-suiter. [Steve Willner] Similarly, I'd allow 4S or higher spade bids and 5m or higher in a minor. I'd consider allowing heart bids but would, like Eric, want to know about agreements. I considered whether to allow 3S or 4m but probably wouldn't; I think 2C shows more strength than these bids normally do. [Gordon Rainsford] I think 4S, 5C & 5D don't show as much as a 2C opener. [Nigel] All Steve's bids seem OK to me (especially if East's 4N would mean strong forcing Minor 2-suiter). If East's 2C has a *more restrictive* meaning than "strong forcing", Mike Flader would say so: Mike Flader is probably aware that such facts are at the nub of the new regulation. In any case, Max Bavin and the WBF recommend a more liberal interpretation. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 13 19:00:10 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:00:10 -0800 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide References: <802A8412B26441969F047D693A6DE34C@MARVLAPTOP> <4AFB446F.1030902@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <957C1374331241BEB9F477352792A07D@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > [An anonymous member of the ACBL LC] > 16B2 says that if the non-huddling side says that they "reserve > the > right to summon the director later", that "The opponents should > summon > the director immediately if they dispute" this. The guidelines > interpret > this to mean that the side that reserved their rights should *not* > call > the director if the other side disputes the facts (but does not > choose > to call the director). However, I would assume that the > non-huddling > side could, and in fact probably should, call the director if the > other > side disputes the facts, but chooses not to call the director. > > [Marvin French] > It seems to me that L16B2 would have said that, if so. No reason > not > to. Do not assume unstated laws, as in "had the irregularity not > occurred" for L12C1(e)(ii). My position is that failing to call > the TD > as the huddling side "should" is not in itself a cause for calling > the > TD. It's an infraction, but if I don't call attention to the > infraction > (e.g., you should call the TD if you disagree") then I am not > obligated > to call the TD if they don't, according to Law9: The Director > should be > summoned at once if attention is called to an irregularity." > So I just say, "Let's continue, please." Since I am not inclined > to > teach opponents about the Laws (not my job), I believe this is > proper > procedure. Right or wrong, BLML? > > [Nige1] > I think the anonymous ACBL member got it right: > > If you think your opponents have broken tempo, then, immediately > ... > - you should ask opponents to confirm your impression. > - opponents should call the director if they dispute the > tempo-break. > - if opponents dispute the tempo-break but don't call the director > then > you should. > > If this really is the law then it can be restated clearly and > simply. > So I agree with Marv that it doesn't appear to be the law. > But I think it should be the law. > And I think it is the right way to behave, anyway. The law as written seems to discourage a discussion between the two sides in order to achieve "agreement." Such a discussion should be moderated by a TD, as opponents sometimes take great umbrage when their UI is noticed. When most of us were seeking agreement under the old Laws, in which an ACBL "election" actually required an immediate call by the non-huddlers, discussions sometimes got pretty fierce. I think from now on I'll just say nothing and wait until the end of play, which L16B2 allows. I hate wasting the valuable time of our TDs, and most UI ends up being harmless. Moreover, I don't want to take playing time away from a round, as I need all the time I can get. The drawback to that is that an ACBL AC may say this hurts my credibility. "Why did you not call the Director at the time?" "Because it's not required and I didn't want to waste his time and mine." I predict this conversation will take place at least once in the upcoming San Diego NABC. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 13 20:07:52 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:07:52 -0800 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide References: <802A8412B26441969F047D693A6DE34C@MARVLAPTOP><4AFB446F.1030902@yahoo.co.uk> <4B3BEA7C1820479CABD59D24AF54946B@Mildred> Message-ID: <0F7F314D34A24B11B292064938AC78D5@MARVLAPTOP> Grattan wrote: > < > +=+ I would say that if opponents dispute the alleged BIT and do > not call the Director the complainant should call the Director. > The > opponents infract the law by not calling the Director and the > Director should be called to deal with this. (Law 9B1) > Why would I call the Director if I don't have to? Playing time is precious to me, and time is precious to the busy TD also. Calling the TD when an opponent breaks a law is not required unless attention is called to it per L9B1(a), and I'm certainly not going to call attention to this particular irregularity. Perhaps you will say that waiting until the end of play hurts my credibility. Why is that, when L16B2 doesn't even suggest an immediate call by me? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 13 20:54:00 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:54:00 -0800 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <2C49C7F4A3CB47A99BDDF01F45B1BAAF@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > >..... >>Right or wrong, BLML? >> >>Marv > > Neither. > > In my opinion Law 16B2 is a fossilised relic of the approach taken > in the 1960s by Edgar Kaplan and others, whereby the non-offending > side always lost all of their Law 16 rights unless they summoned > the Director as soon as possible. And bits of the fossil remain in ACBL-land and Grattan-land, despite the wording of L16B2. > > So in my opinion Law 16B2 should be repealed in 2018, which would > render Marv's knotty scenario moot. As I read L16B2, it does just that. I was very happy to see this new law unchanged by the ACBL LC, no option taken as was done in the 1997 Laws. It puts the onus on the huddlers, where it should be. Education is necessary, of course. Players should be told that if they dispute their alleged UI, they should call the Director immediately or their credibility may suffer if opponents call the TD at the end of play. See, it is not the other side whose credibility should be questioned if the UI side fails to follow correct procedure. The question, "Why didn't you call me at the time?" should be addressed to the UI side, not to their opponents. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 13 21:43:09 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:43:09 -0800 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > >>And I think it is the right way to behave, anyway. > > Richard Hills: > > And I think it is the wrong way to behave, anyway. > > De gustibus non est disputandum. > > While Law 16B2 as currently written states that I "may" hassle and > intimidate bunny opponents by sententiously Reserving My Rights, > it is > because of the word "may" -- "failure to do it is not wrong" -- > that I > have never once invoked Law 16B2 in my entire expert bridge > career. And never regretted it, bet. But that was in your land, not ACBL-land, where huddlers tend to lie and their opponents are not believed. Still, I admire this approach and will follow it henceforth myself. A small problem remains: It seems a little unfair not to put opponents on notice that UI has been detected, because that may deter them from doing something illegal. Let's say a player is considering bidding 4S after his partner's huddle and subsequent pass over a 4H opening. A 4S bid might be logical, but perhaps will be found to be illlegal. So he bids 4S because he would always do so sans huddle and the opponents had not said anything. The TD later adjusts back to 4H. No harm done? Quite possibly yes, as the defense assumed against 4H (most unfavorable at all probable) may result in a fat round zero. Despite my resolve to follow Richard's example, while the opponent is considering what to do I might not resist saying, "I hope we won't need the Director later." If he/she says "Why?" I'll say Gilda-like, "Never mind." In that same situation Mike Shuman once said to me, "I expect you know your ethical obligations." I didn't care for that way of putting it, but didn't object because he meant well. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Nov 13 22:26:34 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:26:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AFDCF0A.5090606@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] And I think it is the right way to behave, anyway. [Richard Hills] And I think it is the wrong way to behave, anyway. De gustibus non est disputandum. While Law 16B2 as currently written states that I "may" hassle and intimidate bunny opponents by sententiously Reserving My Rights, it is because of the word "may" -- "failure to do it is not wrong" -- that I have never once invoked Law 16B2 in my entire expert bridge career. [Marvin L French] And never regretted it, bet. But that was in your land, not ACBL-land, where huddlers tend to lie and their opponents are not believed. Still, I admire this approach and will follow it henceforth myself. [Nigel] Richard and Marv have good intentions but aren't doing their opponent a favour. If the bunny uses unauthorised information, he deserves the chance to be educated by a friendly director *before* it becomes a habit. Altruists like R & M can always ask the director to waive any resultant penalty. From adam at tameware.com Sat Nov 14 03:27:55 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:27:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Washington casebook comments posted Message-ID: <694eadd40911131827y2818371ayfab706b0a61e2478@mail.gmail.com> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Washington2009.html -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Nov 14 04:15:35 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:15:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <4AFD8403.3070403@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AFD8403.3070403@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AFE20D7.5070305@nhcc.net> [2H-2C(oops) ??] >> Why should 4NT (natural) bar partner, for example? > From: Gordon Rainsford > Does anyone play this as natural? I'd expect it to show a strong > minor two-suiter. I wouldn't expect natural to be common, but some might play it that way. >> Similarly, I'd allow 4S or higher spade bids and 5m or higher > I think 4S, 5C & 5D don't show as much as a 2C opener. Are you thinking 2C is game forcing? It isn't for most players in North America. If the 2C opener has a spade one-suiter, and responder is weak, the auction can end at 3S. In contrast, a 2S overcall of 2H should show a decent hand, though some will stretch with a heart void. 3S is stronger than 2S, and 4S is stronger than 3S. What hand can you construct that bids 4S but wouldn't have opened 2C? Maybe ten solid spades and out, but that's a rare hand type that seems not worth worrying about. Of course my bridge judgment may be flawed, but I'm not convinced yet. From ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com Sat Nov 14 18:30:09 2009 From: ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com (Ranju Bhattacharjee) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:00:09 +0530 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure Message-ID: Hello What is full disclosure? I need some explanation from you because I read the news in BBO regarding full disclosure which some portion of the news I copy and paste here. I have told some players that "no agreement is an agreement so you are force to guess what's it's meaning and tell your opponents" Am I wrong? NEWS IN BBO "But what if you make a bid and you have no agreement with partner? Do you still have to explain your bid and more or less tell them what you hold in your hand? Of course not. If you have no agreement with partner on a bid your answer to your opponent's question is No Agreement. It's as simple as that!" Is it correct? Ranju Bhattacharjee Calcutta, India _________________________________________________________________ New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more. http://windows.microsoft.com/shop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091114/71017a00/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 14 19:11:31 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:11:31 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC casebook Message-ID: <8B4E9C67A3A9491BB3497BC46F920D5A@MARVLAPTOP> I see that we now have a real casebook for Washington, with commentaries. In a few days I will combine all the cases into two .pdf files, NABC+ and non-NABC+, on my web site under Bridge Laws and Regulations. We have discussed non-NABC+ case 1 already on BLML, so I won't type out the whole thing. The essence of it was an illegal 5S bid over an opposing 5C that pushed the opponents to 6C down one. The TD ruled "serious error" for not doubling 5S, so table result stands for the NOS. The OS score was adjusted to 5C making. The TD reviewing panel's decision was the same, and the commentators mostly agreed.. Wolff: "Extra good ruling." Rigal: "Excellent ruling by both the director and the panel." Polisner disagreed with the "serious error" finding, good for him, and Wildavsky wrote "6C may have been a mistake, but it was not the kind of serious error that should deny E/W redress for damage per L12C1(b). That would be something like ducking the setting trick against a game or slam." That echoes a WBF LC minute. Smith: "Good job by all concerned." L12C1(b) If subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious errror (unrelated to the infraction)....it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. No one realized that the alleged "serious error" (pushing on to 6C instead of doubling 5S) was related to the infraction (the 5S bid) and therefore should not have even been considered as a cause for annulment of redress. Nor was it noted (except by TD Matt Smith) that denial of a score adjustment for the OS when they commit a serious error does not apply in the "rest of the world." He added that the ACBL LC will address this matter in its meeting at the San Diego NABC. The second issue involving L12C1(b) and the ACBL did not come up in this case. Had 6C failed because of a revoke by declarer, the OS score would have been adjusted to 5C making six (including the revoke). The "rest of the world" would adjust to 5C making five, excluding the revoke. This issue will also be discussed in San Diego. L12C1(b) The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only. It's no wonder that the ACBL LC does not understand what this means (as one member confessed), which is (I'm told) that "serious error" by the NOS in the play is not to be included in an OS score adjustment, even if the error was (sic) unrelated to the infraction. Maybe someone can justify this oddity. The lawmakers evidently could not accept that an adjusted score might be a great result for the OS if opposing serious error were to be included in the assumed play. That is punishment, not rectification. Not that it matters, but I am in total agreement with the two ACBL policies. (1) If the NOS shoots themselves in the foot, inflicting self-damage through serious eror when they had a fine result available, they were not damaged by the infraction and should not get any redress. (2) Changing the assumed play of the cards in an OS adjusted score for no reason related to the infraction is just plain silly. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 14 19:28:21 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:28:21 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure References: Message-ID: From: "Ranju Bhattacharjee" Hello What is full disclosure? I need some explanation from you because I read the news in BBO regarding full disclosure which some portion of the news I copy and paste here. I have told some players that "no agreement is an agreement so you are force to guess what's it's meaning and tell your opponents" Am I wrong? Marv: Yes and no. If you are possibly going to take an action based on your guess of the meaning, you should disclose that meaning as if you were confident of it. If you are right, then you actually have an agreement with partner, even if not discussed. If you are wrong, the opponents get redress for any damage. If your next actions will be totally unrelated to the meaning, then "no agreement" is okay. Disclosing a guess of the meaning may mislead the opponents if it is wrong, even though your doubt is also disclosed. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Nov 14 20:23:16 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:23:16 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0911141123x1b743279qb8c22e98aea59055@mail.gmail.com> >From Marvin L French: > > Yes and no. > > If you are possibly going to take an action based on your guess of > the meaning, you should disclose that meaning as if you were > confident of it. If you are right, then you actually have an > agreement with partner, even if not discussed. If you are wrong, the > opponents get redress for any damage. > > ?If your next actions will be totally unrelated to the meaning, then > "no agreement" is okay. Disclosing a guess of ?the meaning may > mislead the opponents if it is wrong, even though your doubt is also > disclosed. > There seem two flaws with this: 1. If you play this way, then when you say "no agreement" you signal to everyone at the table that "your next actions are totally unrelated to the meaning." 2. "If you are wrong" the opponents might *not* "get redress for any damage," for your partner might adjust his future actions taking your explanation into account. If only there was a way to handle the situation without declaring how you will treat your partner's call... . Jerry Fusselman From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sat Nov 14 22:02:28 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:02:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0911141123x1b743279qb8c22e98aea59055@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0911141123x1b743279qb8c22e98aea59055@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AFF1AE4.5070605@yahoo.co.uk> [Marvin L French] If you are possibly going to take an action based on your guess of the meaning, you should disclose that meaning as if you were confident of it. If you are right, then you actually have an agreement with partner, even if not discussed. If you are wrong, the opponents get redress for any damage. If your next actions will be totally unrelated to the meaning, then "no agreement" is okay. Disclosing a guess of the meaning may mislead the opponents if it is wrong, even though your doubt is also disclosed. [Jerry Fusselman] There seem two flaws with this: 1. If you play this way, then when you say "no agreement" you signal to everyone at the table that "your next actions are totally unrelated to the meaning." 2. "If you are wrong" the opponents might *not* "get redress for any damage," for your partner might adjust his future actions taking your explanation into account. If only there was a way to handle the situation without declaring how you will treat your partner's call... [Nige1] Marvin seems to be a late convert to the Herman Heresy. I agree that "If you don't know, you must guess" would be better law. But it's *not* the law. As I understand it, the law says: if you don't know then just say "I don't know". You may offer to reveal pointers to possible meanings but shouldn't actually divulge them without opponent's explicit go-ahead. Another problem with telling an opponent how you are "taking partner's bid" is that your action is not always based on your best guess at its meaning. For example .. Suppose with a minimum 5332 hand, you open 1S, partner replies 2N, an opponent asks what 2N means, and you don't know. - it's likely to be natural and non-forcing but - it's possible but unlikely that it is a forcing spade raise. You would pass if you were sure that partner intended the first meaning but since the second meaning is a possibility, you feel it is wiser to keep the bidding open with 3S (assuming that 3S would be a weak in the latter context). Here, if you say that you understand partner's bid to be a forcing heart raise, I think you are misleading your opponent. Further, if your own hand helps you to decide between likely meanings, then I am sure that you are not obliged to divulge such inferences, From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Nov 14 22:26:59 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:26:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Full_Disclosure?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1N9Q95-1VJu3k0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> From: Ranju Bhattacharjee > ? ? ? ? What is full disclosure? > ?I need some explanation from you because I read the news in BBO > regarding full disclosure which some portion of the news I copy and > paste here. I have told some players that "no agreement is an > agreement so you are force to guess what's it's meaning and tell your > opponents" > ?Am I wrong? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? yes, you're wrong. ? > ?NEWS IN BBO > ?"But what if you make a bid and you have no agreement with partner? > Do you still have to explain your bid and more or less tell them what > you hold in your hand? Of course not. If you have no agreement with > partner on a bid your answer to your opponent's question is NO > AGREEMENT. It's as simple as that!" > ? > ? ?Is it correct? yes, this is correct. Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany ? > ?Ranju Bhattacharjee > ?Calcutta, India From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Nov 14 23:33:38 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:33:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC casebook In-Reply-To: <8B4E9C67A3A9491BB3497BC46F920D5A@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8B4E9C67A3A9491BB3497BC46F920D5A@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <8B89DED3FCA8413EB94CD6015F1A9879@erdos> "Marvin L French" writes: > We have discussed non-NABC+ case 1 already on BLML, so I won't type > out the whole thing. The essence of it was an illegal 5S bid over an > opposing 5C that pushed the opponents to 6C down one. The TD ruled > "serious error" for not doubling 5S, so table result stands for the > NOS. The OS score was adjusted to 5C making. The TD reviewing > panel's decision was the same, and the commentators mostly agreed.. > No one realized that the alleged "serious error" (pushing on to 6C > instead of doubling 5S) was related to the infraction (the 5S bid) > and therefore should not have even been considered as a cause for > annulment of redress. I don't think there is a consensus on this point; what makes the error related to the infraction? An example of a serious error related to an infraction was in NABC+ Case 12. North led the HK and everyone showed out. Later, North attempted to cash the H6, which was only the 12th card of the suit, and West won the trick with the HQ The two-trick adjustment for the revoke was determined to be inadequate, because West's actual play suggested that N-S would have taken four more tricks if West had followed suit. Bobby Wolff said that trying to cash the 12th heart was a "grievous error" and would have awarded a split score; nobody else suggested such a ruling The AC ruled that it was not a serious error, but even if it is a serious error to miscount a suit, this particular miscount was directly caused by everyone showing out on the previous round. The example I like to give of a split score (because I was East): S dealer, both vulnerable S W N E 1S P 2S ..P P X 3S X AP North had a flat 6-count with three spades, and 3Sx was -800; had North passed, East would have bid 3D making four for +130. The TD ruled that West's double was an infraction, and awarded +200 to E-W for 2S undoubled, but ruled that N-S were damaged by North's bad bid, not by West's double (which turns +200 into +130 if North passes), and let N-S keep their -800. Would you award -200/+200, because North could not have made the 3S bid without the infraction? Alternatively, would you deny adjustment based on North taking a double shot, but allow the adjustment if North's serious error were not a double shot (e.g., he had a club in with his spades and thought he was 4=4=3=2?) From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat Nov 14 23:46:46 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:46:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure In-Reply-To: <1N9Q95-1VJu3k0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <1N9Q95-1VJu3k0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0911141446s11b72592s4392bfa543a3fd80@mail.gmail.com> I think that its important that the members of this list understand how and when typical "No Agreement" auctions occur on online bridge sites like Bridge Base Online Most games on these online sites involve partnerships that are ephemeral in nature. A typical example of a "partnership" is something like the following I enter an "individual" format tournament. I am paired with a random player for two boards. I know that my partner is from the US (or maybe Turkey/China/Poland/Italy). I have no idea regarding my partner's level of play, knowledge of conventions, what have you. All I know is that partner claims that he is an "expert" and that he has SAYC listed in his profile. Partner knows that I claim to be advanced and that I have 2/1 GF in my profile. Partner opens 1S and I respond 1NT What is our agreement? -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091114/89525929/attachment-0001.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 15 12:35:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:35:52 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC casebook References: <8B4E9C67A3A9491BB3497BC46F920D5A@MARVLAPTOP> <8B89DED3FCA8413EB94CD6015F1A9879@erdos> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Washington NABC casebook > The example I like to give of a split score (because I was East): S dealer, both vulnerable S W N E 1S P 2S ..P P X 3S X AP North had a flat 6-count with three spades, and 3Sx was -800; had North passed, East would have bid 3D making four for +130. The TD ruled that West's double was an infraction, and awarded +200 to E-W for 2S undoubled, but ruled that N-S were damaged by North's bad bid, not by West's double (which turns +200 into +130 if North passes), and let N-S keep their -800. Would you award -200/+200, because North could not have made the 3S bid without the infraction? Alternatively, would you deny adjustment based on North taking a double shot, but allow the adjustment if North's serious error were not a double shot (e.g., he had a club in with his spades and thought he was 4=4=3=2?) > +=+ Is it suggested that if he konows he has three Spades it is wild, while if he 'knows' he has four Spades it is a serious error but related to the offence? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Nov 15 13:11:21 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:11:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC casebook In-Reply-To: <8B4E9C67A3A9491BB3497BC46F920D5A@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8B4E9C67A3A9491BB3497BC46F920D5A@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4AFFEFE9.9070703@yahoo.co.uk> [Marvin French] The essence of it was an illegal 5S bid over an opposing 5C that pushed the opponents to 6C down one. The TD ruled "serious error" for not doubling 5S, so table result stands for the NOS. The OS score was adjusted to 5C making. The TD reviewing panel's decision was the same, and the commentators mostly agreed.. No one realized that the alleged "serious error" (pushing on to 6C instead of doubling 5S) was related to the infraction (the 5S bid) and therefore should not have even been considered as a cause for annulment of redress. Nor was it noted (except by TD Matt Smith) that denial of a score adjustment for the OS when they commit a serious error does not apply in the "rest of the world." He added that the ACBL LC will address this matter in its meeting at the San Diego NABC. [Nigel] If the director/comittee/commentators consider that 6C to be a "serious error" double-shot, the ruling is correct in law. Both in America and in "the rest of the world". I agree with Adam Wildavsky who dissents from the majority view. I don't think 6C is egregious. Anyway, the "double-shot" rule is unnecessary. It adds no value to the game. If favours law-breaking experts. Fearing that the director may "add insult to injury", victims are deterred from reporting infractions. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Nov 15 19:00:10 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:00:10 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC casebook References: <8B4E9C67A3A9491BB3497BC46F920D5A@MARVLAPTOP> <8B89DED3FCA8413EB94CD6015F1A9879@erdos> Message-ID: <5D68A07976454FADA279B76598D2BFF8@MARVLAPTOP> From: "David Grabiner" Marv > >> No one realized that the alleged "serious error" (pushing on to >> 6C >> instead of doubling 5S) was related to the infraction (the 5S >> bid) >> and therefore should not have even been considered as a cause for >> annulment of redress. > > I don't think there is a consensus on this point; what makes the > error related > to the infraction? Its cause was the illegal 5S bid, that relates it. Anyway, it was not serious error, so on two counts the alleged error goes out the window. > The example I like to give of a split score (because I was East): > > S dealer, both vulnerable > > S W N E > 1S P 2S ..P > P X 3S X > AP > > North had a flat 6-count with three spades, and 3Sx was -800; had > North passed, > East would have bid 3D making four for +130. The TD ruled that > West's double > was an infraction, and awarded +200 to E-W for 2S undoubled, but > ruled that N-S > were damaged by North's bad bid, not by West's double (which turns > +200 into > +130 if North passes), and let N-S keep their -800. > > Would you award -200/+200, because North could not have made the > 3S bid without > the infraction? Yes. > > Alternatively, would you deny adjustment based on North taking a > double shot, > but allow the adjustment if North's serious error were not a > double shot (e.g., > he had a club in with his spades and thought he was 4=4=3=2?) "Double shot" is an ACBL characterization of what is usually a legal action, so let's not use it. North's 3S bid was a stupid attempt to push the opponents into an unmakeable contract. I don't believe this rises to the level of "serious error" but it might be considered a "wild or gambling action," which would annul redress. That's for the TD/AC to decide. In any event, E/W get the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred (in ACBL-land), which is +200. In the "rest of the world" E/W get the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, period, which is probably +130. Thanks for another example in which the "emendation" has a drastic effect on the proper adjustment for the OS. WBF LC please note. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Nov 15 19:23:31 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:23:31 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC appeals now combined Message-ID: <80AA2ABD5DDD43FAA8256AB742BF28EE@MARVLAPTOP> I have posted two new pdf files on my web site under Bridge Laws and Regulations. At the bottom of that page are two pdf files that combine both NABC+ and non-NABC+ cases from the Washington NABC. I deleted the Boston NABC cases because the page is getting crowded and I have no intention of maintaining a complete history of NABC casebooks. Adam, the ACBL should be doing this. A "casebook" is a completed volume, not a collection of individual cases. Before 2006 the cases were combined into one pdf file and that policy should be resumed. It took me only about 20 minutes. Mine could be copied onto the ACBL web site, but the "not made here" attitude may prevent that. The ACBL used to sell printed casebooks at NABCs, but I suppose some bean counter stopped the practice. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 15 23:28:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:28:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1N9Q95-1VJu3k0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Oscar Wilde, "The Importance of Being Earnest": "The truth is rarely pure, and never simple." News in BBO: [snip] >>If you have no agreement with partner on a bid your answer to your >>opponent's question is NO AGREEMENT. It's as simple as that!" Peter Eidt: >Yes, this is correct. Richard Hills: Yes and no. This is impurely correct but definitely not simple. ABF Alert Regulation 2008, clause 9.2: "If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call, you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for example, and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. **When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be given to the opponents.** Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised information to partner." Richard Hills: Clause 9.2's highlighted second sentence is the ABF implementation of the final phrase of 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**." Richard Willey: [snip] >>>I enter an "individual" format tournament.? I am paired with a >>>random player for two boards.? I know that my partner is from the >>>US (or maybe Turkey/China/Poland/Italy).? I have no idea regarding >>>my partner's level of play, knowledge of conventions, what have >>>you.? All I know is that partner claims that he is an "expert" and >>>that he has SAYC listed in his profile.? Partner knows that I claim >>>to be advanced and that I have 2/1 GF in my profile. >>> >>>Partner opens 1S and I respond 1NT >>> >>>What is our agreement? Richard Hills: Suppose Richard's opponents' profile says: "We both come from the former People's Republic of Ruritania. The former regime had 100% closed borders and 100% prohibition of communication with the outside world. At the state-run Duplicate Bridge schools all students were indoctrinated in the officially mandated bidding system, Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request), with books on other bidding systems burned before reading. "This is our first BBO event since Ruritania's Diamond Revolution, which occurred at 4:55pm yesterday." Against those opponents Richard Willey's partner would have to alert Richard's unusual 1NT response, and explain that they had an implicit partnership understanding through mutual experience or awareness that the 1NT response did not have the normal meaning of an artificial game force relay. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Nov 15 23:39:24 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:39:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1N9Q95-1VJu3k0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0911151439l2ca42d6dscc8dc5c769f68324@mail.gmail.com> Richard Hills: > > Suppose Richard's opponents' profile says: > > "We both come from the former People's Republic of Ruritania. The > former regime had 100% closed borders and 100% prohibition of > communication with the outside world. At the state-run Duplicate > Bridge schools all students were indoctrinated in the officially > mandated bidding system, Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on > request), with books on other bidding systems burned before reading. > > "This is our first BBO event since Ruritania's Diamond Revolution, > which occurred at 4:55pm yesterday." > > Against those opponents Richard Willey's partner would have to > alert Richard's unusual 1NT response, and explain that they had an > implicit partnership understanding through mutual experience or > awareness that the 1NT response did not have the normal meaning of an > artificial game force relay. > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > If you play any significant amount of online bridge, you quickly learn the following: 1. No one provides anything remotely equivalent to the level of information that your example suggests. 2. The information that people do provide typically bears only a passing relationship to reality. 3. The basic lexicon has been polluted beyond recovery. As far as I can tell, the expression SAYC pretty much means "We don't play Acol". Lord help you if they do claim to be playing Acol. Sadly, if your partner isn't someone you already know its going to take you half a dozen boards to figure out whats going on, and by then they've probably left the table. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091115/8ec45499/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Nov 16 03:12:39 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:12:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC casebook In-Reply-To: References: <8B4E9C67A3A9491BB3497BC46F920D5A@MARVLAPTOP><8B89DED3FCA8413EB94CD6015F1A9879@erdos> Message-ID: <3591739F0E8C439EA504AB7AE1E10A0A@erdos> My intention was to distinguish between a serious error (misbidding because of a mis-sorted hand) and a potential double shot (taking a known abnormal action with the expectation that there is no downside because of an adjusted score). If the NOS is entitled to an adjustment even if they make a serious error that is related to the infraction, you might still deny the adjustment based on the double shot. The actual TD ruling didn't mention the words "double shot"; rather, it was that North took an unreasonable action and had to suffer the consequences. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Washington NABC casebook > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > Collective nouns....... > I know it's a 'flock' of camels but > is it a 'hatful' of fleas? > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Grabiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:33 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Washington NABC casebook >> > The example I like to give of a split score (because I was East): > > S dealer, both vulnerable > > S W N E > 1S P 2S ..P > P X 3S X > AP > > North had a flat 6-count with three spades, and 3Sx was -800; > had North passed, East would have bid 3D making four for +130. > The TD ruled that West's double was an infraction, and awarded > +200 to E-W for 2S undoubled, but ruled that N-S were > damaged by North's bad bid, not by West's double (which turns > +200 into +130 if North passes), and let N-S keep their -800. > > Would you award -200/+200, because North could not have > made the 3S bid without the infraction? > > Alternatively, would you deny adjustment based on North > taking a double shot, but allow the adjustment if North's serious > error were not a double shot (e.g., he had a club in with his > spades and thought he was 4=4=3=2?) >> > +=+ Is it suggested that if he konows he has three Spades it > is wild, while if he 'knows' he has four Spades it is a serious > error but related to the offence? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 16 04:14:49 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:14:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0911151439l2ca42d6dscc8dc5c769f68324@mail.gmail.com> References: <1N9Q95-1VJu3k0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <2da24b8e0911151439l2ca42d6dscc8dc5c769f68324@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:39:24 -0500, richard willey wrote: > Richard Hills: > >> >> Suppose Richard's opponents' profile says: >> >> "We both come from the former People's Republic of Ruritania. The >> former regime had 100% closed borders and 100% prohibition of >> communication with the outside world. At the state-run Duplicate >> Bridge schools all students were indoctrinated in the officially >> mandated bidding system, Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on >> request), with books on other bidding systems burned before reading. >> >> "This is our first BBO event since Ruritania's Diamond Revolution, >> which occurred at 4:55pm yesterday." >> >> Against those opponents Richard Willey's partner would have to >> alert Richard's unusual 1NT response, and explain that they had an >> implicit partnership understanding through mutual experience or >> awareness that the 1NT response did not have the normal meaning of an >> artificial game force relay. >> > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > If you play any significant amount of online bridge, you quickly learn > the > following: > > 1. No one provides anything remotely equivalent to the level of > information > that your example suggests. > > 2. The information that people do provide typically bears only a passing > relationship to reality. > > 3. The basic lexicon has been polluted beyond recovery. As far as I can > tell, the expression SAYC pretty much means "We don't play Acol". Lord > help > you if they do claim to be playing Acol. > > Sadly, if your partner isn't someone you already know its going to take > you > half a dozen boards to figure out whats going on, and by then they've > probably left the table. Even at the table, I am not sure how well the laws correspond to how people make agreements nowadays. Suppose my partner and I agree to play Precision as described in a particular book. That's a clear agreement, but it might end up that my partner and I are playing conventions that neither one of is is aware of. Or, another real problem, we agree to play Rosenkrantz doubles, and then the question comes up if they are on over a balancing overcall. Presumably Rosenkrantz knows the answer to that question, but my partner and I do not. Does the director call Rosenkrantz to determine misinformation versus misbid? Drifting ever onward, when my partner and I agree to play "4th suit forcing to game" or "New Minor Forcing" or "RKC Blackwood", we are agreeing to somewhat elaborate conventions that we may (and have had) different understandings of. So when we agree to play "Standard American", what have we agreed to? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 16 04:41:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:41:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Who's Cheating Whom? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Peter Gill, 6th May 2001: >>>.....An expert card player, deep thinker and exceedingly >>>ethical player (in fact, the rare kind of player whose >>>bridge record might have been more glittering had he been >>>less ethical, sad but true to say)..... Eric Landau, 8th May 2006: >>Everything Nigel writes is true. But money, power and sex >>are serious business. Bridge, OTOH, is a game we play for >>fun..... Grattan Endicott, 8th May 2006: >+=+ Personally I have always found money, power and sex to >be fun as well. > ~ G ~ +=+ Alfie Kohn, sociologist author of "Punished by Rewards", extract from his article "Who's Cheating Whom?" http://www.alfiekohn.org/articles.htm#null [snip] The goal of acing a test, getting a good mark, making the honor roll, or impressing the teacher is completely different from - indeed, antithetical to - the goal of figuring out what makes some objects float and some sink or why the character in that play we just read is so indecisive. ?When you look at the kind of schooling that's all about superior results and "raising the bar", you tend to find a variety of unwelcome consequences:?less interest in learning for its own sake, less willingness to take on challenging tasks (since the point is to produce good results, not to take intellectual risks), more superficial thinking . . . and more cheating. That is exactly what Eric Anderman, a leading expert on the subject, and his colleagues have found.? In a 1998 study of middle school students, those who "perceived that their schools emphasized performance [as opposed to learning] goals were more likely to report engaging in cheating behaviors".? Six years later, he turned his attention to the transition from eighth to ninth grade and looked at the culture of individual classrooms. The result was essentially the same: More cheating took place when teachers emphasized good grades, high test scores, and being smart. There was less cheating when they made it clear that the point was to enjoy the learning, when understanding mattered more than memorizing, and when mistakes were accepted as a natural result of exploration. Interestingly, these studies found that even students who acknowledged that it's wrong to cheat were more likely to do so when the school culture placed a premium on results. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. ?Cheating can help you to get a good grade and look impressive (assuming you don't get caught), so it's a strategy that might well appeal to students with those goals.? But it would be pointless to cheat if you were interested in the learning itself because cheating can't help you understand an idea. [snip] Eric Landau, 8th May 2006: >>.....It's just a game, isn't it? Master points are just a >>way to keep score. They're not really worth anything, are >>they? Am I being unrealistically naive about this? Todd Zimnoch, 8th May 2006: >I think so. Aren't some pros paid to win these 'worthless' >things for their clients? Richard Hills, 16th November 2006: I agree with Alfie Kohn and Eric Landau, and disagree with Todd Zimnoch. For example, at Sunday's Tumbarumba Teams, I gained no fun at shooting fish in a barrel to win six matches out of six, finishing 22 VPs ahead of second place. Rather my fun on one deal was turning the wheels of my fun bidding system (designed by NZ Professor Roy Kerr) Symmetric Relay, in order to evaluate the play in the auction, and thus discover that 7C was a superb contract on a single dummy basis. And then during the actual play of 7C I funnily took the standard safety play against a 4-0 trump break with an outstanding trump jack. When that 4-0 trump break actually occurred at the table, I gained further fun by abandoning my now invalid Plan A and designing Plan B. But there was no fun whatsoever in gaining 19 imps for +2140 at our table and -50 at our team-mates table (where they shot fish in a barrel by stealing the contract in 4S). Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 16 07:13:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:13:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Common cents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder, 27th August 2005: >>>Neither you nor I can stop some significant bridge >>>personalities, American or otherwise, from >>>continuing to ignore Laws, Rules, and Regulations >>>they don't agree with. Yet, I find it my duty and >>>pleasure to let them know that we are aware when >>>ego transcends professional performance. >>> >>>Best regards, >>> >>>Kojak Lorenz Hart (1895-1943), American songwriter: When love congeals It soon reveals The faint aroma of performing seals Richard Hills, 19th May 2006: >>The problem with a director using their common >>sense to issue a ruling contrary to Law is that >>different directors have different opinions on >>what common sense is. >> >>If a Law is logically flawed, so that it violates >>_everybody's_ common sense, the solution is to >>amend or repeal that Law. Nigel Guthrie, 19th May 2006, common sense: >IMO there are many completely unnecessary rules. >For example... >[A] Forbidding kibitzers to report alleged >infractions (even suspected cheating) to the >director. Richard Hills, 16th November 2009, common sense: The revised 2007 Law 76 now clarifies that a spectator is not defined as a spectator for ever and ever Amen. Rather a spectator ceases to be a spectator after leaving the playing area and/or after the session ends. So then the spectator can report evidence of suspected cheating to the appropriate authority (e.g. the official Recorder). As for Nigel's common sense idea that a sponsor's hired kibitzer should be permitted (in the 2018 version of Law 76) to draw the sponsor's attention to an opponent's revoke, my common sense differs. Nigel Guthrie, 19th May 2006, common sense: >[B] Permitting law-breaking experts to deny a >victim redress by "adding insult to injury". That >is, by persuading the director that a *subsequent* >action by their victim was "egregiously bad" or >"wild and gambling". Richard Hills, 16th November 2009, common sense: Law 10 and Law 81C make it clear that the Director, not the players, is responsible for the application and interpretation of the Lawbook. Of course, the Director may choose to seek advice about the Laws and/or the facts from the players (including dummy -- see Law 42A1). But the 2007 Law 12 has at least partially solved Nigel's concerns, as the non-offending side no longer loses any part of its rectification if its "serious error" is related to the infraction. Nigel Guthrie, 19th May 2006, common sense: >[C] Actively encouraging non-disclosure by >introducing spurious excuses for the prevaricator >such as "General knowledge and experience" and >"I'm not certain so I mustn't guess" Richard Hills, 16th November 2009, common sense: The revised 2007 wording in Law 40B6(a) is: "...need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players". So if the particular questioning bridge player does not know about the "matters", then the "knowledge" is not "general" so therefore must be explained. Nigel Guthrie, 19th May 2006, common sense: >[D] Equity rules and rules that allow calculated >scores and other fudge rulings which tend to >deprive the victim of adequate redress; and allow >a director/committee to decide the result of an >event on a whim, in a ruling against which it is >almost impossible to appeal successfully. [big snip] Richard Hills, 16th November 2009, common sense: Equity rules and rules that allow calculated scores and other just rulings tend to restore to the non- offending side adequate redress (as opposed to more- than-adequate windfalls which would occur if the deterrence of offending sides was based on score adjustments rather than the more logical procedural and/or disciplinary penalties). There is only one performing seal Director I know who might have decided a ruling on a whim; he alleged on blml that in a particular circumstance (his belief that an appeal was certain, due to the importance of the ruling) he might save time by tossing a coin. Of course, that performing seal Director would have had egg all over his face if: (a) his coin toss resulted in the wrong ruling, and (b) the coin-toss losing but deserving side lacked the 5000 common cents for the monetary deposit for the appeal. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jmmgc1 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 16 09:49:29 2009 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?Sm9z6SBNaWd1ZWw=?= ) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:49:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure References: <1N9Q95-1VJu3k0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <2da24b8e0911141446s11b72592s4392bfa543a3fd80@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I have an easy way to act in these cases, the player of a higher level is set to the worst level, and as I assume in this situation than a player than plays only SAYC has lower level than a player of 2/1, therefore I assume SAYC, and look for another expert next time... -------Original Message------- From: richard willey Date: 14/11/2009 23:46:54 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Full Disclosure I think that its important that the members of this list understand how and when typical "No Agreement" auctions occur on online bridge sites like Bridge Base Online Most games on these online sites involve partnerships that are ephemeral in nature. A typical example of a "partnership" is something like the following I enter an "individual" format tournament. I am paired with a random player for two boards. I know that my partner is from the US (or maybe Turkey/China/Poland/Italy). I have no idea regarding my partner's level of play, knowledge of conventions, what have you. All I know is that partner claims that he is an "expert" and that he has SAYC listed in his profile. Partner knows that I claim to be advanced and that I have 2/1 GF in my profile. Partner opens 1S and I respond 1NT What is our agreement? -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091116/b37635d3/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 7162 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091116/b37635d3/attachment-0001.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 31851 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091116/b37635d3/attachment-0001.gif From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 16 10:28:39 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:28:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B011B47.4020003@skynet.be> The problem with "no agreement" is that the director may not rule it as such. Especially in on-line situations, it is common to find yourself opposite a player with whom you have absolutely no agreement. And yet, you may well have some idea about what is "normal" in the current pairing, which your opponents may lack. Example: If I play with an unknown frenchman, I will assume french methods. When playing against an argentinian and a chinese, I am definitely at an advantage. I should tell them what "french methods" are. OTOH, when playing, on-line, with three Belgians, even when I don't know them, I need not say any more than "no agreement (other than those you will assume as easily as I do)". Herman. Ranju Bhattacharjee wrote: > Hello > What is full disclosure? > I need some explanation from you because I read the news in BBO > regarding full disclosure which some portion of the news I copy and > paste here. I have told some players that "no agreement is an agreement > so you are force to guess what's it's meaning and tell your opponents" > Am I wrong? > __ > _NEWS IN BBO_ > "But what if you make a bid and you have no agreement with partner? Do > you still have to explain your bid and more or less tell them what you > hold in your hand? Of course not. If you have no agreement with partner > on a bid your answer to your opponent's question is *No Agreement.* It's > as simple as that!" > > Is it correct? > > Ranju Bhattacharjee > Calcutta, India > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 16 10:34:46 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:34:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1N9Q95-1VJu3k0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <2da24b8e0911151439l2ca42d6dscc8dc5c769f68324@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B011CB6.4020005@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:39:24 -0500, richard willey > wrote: > >> Richard Hills: >> >>> Suppose Richard's opponents' profile says: >>> >>> "We both come from the former People's Republic of Ruritania. The >>> former regime had 100% closed borders and 100% prohibition of >>> communication with the outside world. At the state-run Duplicate >>> Bridge schools all students were indoctrinated in the officially >>> mandated bidding system, Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on >>> request), with books on other bidding systems burned before reading. >>> >>> "This is our first BBO event since Ruritania's Diamond Revolution, >>> which occurred at 4:55pm yesterday." >>> >>> Against those opponents Richard Willey's partner would have to >>> alert Richard's unusual 1NT response, and explain that they had an >>> implicit partnership understanding through mutual experience or >>> awareness that the 1NT response did not have the normal meaning of an >>> artificial game force relay. >>> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> If you play any significant amount of online bridge, you quickly learn >> the >> following: >> >> 1. No one provides anything remotely equivalent to the level of >> information >> that your example suggests. >> >> 2. The information that people do provide typically bears only a passing >> relationship to reality. >> >> 3. The basic lexicon has been polluted beyond recovery. As far as I can >> tell, the expression SAYC pretty much means "We don't play Acol". Lord >> help >> you if they do claim to be playing Acol. >> >> Sadly, if your partner isn't someone you already know its going to take >> you >> half a dozen boards to figure out whats going on, and by then they've >> probably left the table. > > > Even at the table, I am not sure how well the laws correspond to how > people make agreements nowadays. Suppose my partner and I agree to play > Precision as described in a particular book. That's a clear agreement, > but it might end up that my partner and I are playing conventions that > neither one of is is aware of. > > Or, another real problem, we agree to play Rosenkrantz doubles, and then > the question comes up if they are on over a balancing overcall. Presumably > Rosenkrantz knows the answer to that question, but my partner and I do > not. Does the director call Rosenkrantz to determine misinformation versus > misbid? > > Drifting ever onward, when my partner and I agree to play "4th suit > forcing to game" or "New Minor Forcing" or "RKC Blackwood", we are > agreeing to somewhat elaborate conventions that we may (and have had) > different understandings of. > > So when we agree to play "Standard American", what have we agreed to? > You are argueing for the defence. Now put on your director's hat and make a ruling where the opponents are the non-offenders. If two people have exactly the same idea of a piece of bidding, and they say "we have no agreement", are they telling the truth or not? They might be, but possibly they have more knowledge about what they both consider "normal" under the circumstances. The Ruritanian example by Richard is a fine one. Herman. From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 12:00:26 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:00:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B011CB6.4020005@skynet.be> References: <1N9Q95-1VJu3k0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <2da24b8e0911151439l2ca42d6dscc8dc5c769f68324@mail.gmail.com> <4B011CB6.4020005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0911160300lc9b21bcg7ea35b8ed0b22efa@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > You are argueing for the defence. > Now put on your director's hat and make a ruling where the opponents are > the non-offenders. > If two people have exactly the same idea of a piece of bidding, and they > say "we have no agreement", are they telling the truth or not? They > might be, but possibly they have more knowledge about what they both > consider "normal" under the circumstances. The Ruritanian example by > Richard is a fine one. > 95% of the time that a situation like this comes up its in the context of complete informal play. There is no director present. On occasion, there is a "director" present, however, said director is rarely certified. Their knowledge of the laws is every bit as suspect as the player's knowledge of their agreements. As I recall, the normal procedure is to assign both pairs an A+ to make them happy and make sure that they continue to pay money to participate in tournaments. In all seriousness, I'm curious whether any of you actually have any significant experience playing in online tournaments. The arguments that you construct seem about as relevant to online play as debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091116/2b795dd8/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 16 13:45:29 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:45:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure In-Reply-To: <4B011B47.4020003@skynet.be> References: <4B011B47.4020003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4B014969.3060305@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > The problem with "no agreement" is that the director may not rule it as > such. > Especially in on-line situations, it is common to find yourself opposite > a player with whom you have absolutely no agreement. And yet, you may > well have some idea about what is "normal" in the current pairing, which > your opponents may lack. Example: If I play with an unknown frenchman, I > will assume french methods. When playing against an argentinian and a > chinese, I am definitely at an advantage. I should tell them what > "french methods" are. > OTOH, when playing, on-line, with three Belgians, even when I don't know > them, I need not say any more than "no agreement (other than those you > will assume as easily as I do)". > > AG : IMHO this distinction is subject to discussion. "No agreement" doesn't mean the same as "usual agreements". In Brussels, about 95% of the players (low estimation) play some form of Jacoby 2NT, but if they told me 'no agreement' I'd expect 2NT to be natural. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 16 13:46:27 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:46:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem Message-ID: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Pairs, none vulnerable. The other three players are of better-than-average level. You hold : AQJx - Jxxx - x - Q109x The bidding : . 1D 1S X 2D p 2S 3D 3S p p 4D ? What do you bid ? This is a tempo problem, of course. Partner hesitated before passing 3S. Thank you for your advice. Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 16 14:10:56 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:10:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005b01ca66be$3b98a7c0$b2c9f740$@nl> To start with the question is what 3D would have meant iso 2D. I do not like my bidding so far. However, since I bid like I did I can now only bid 4S if my bidding was GF, which seems unlikely. So if it is a tempo problem it looks like I would rule pass is a law 16 reasonable alternative for whatever call I might think of. Hans van Staveren -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: maandag 16 november 2009 13:46 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List; Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem Pairs, none vulnerable. The other three players are of better-than-average level. You hold : AQJx - Jxxx - x - Q109x The bidding : . 1D 1S X 2D p 2S 3D 3S p p 4D ? What do you bid ? This is a tempo problem, of course. Partner hesitated before passing 3S. Thank you for your advice. Alain _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 16 14:45:46 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:45:46 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <10318212.1258379146423.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.ha2.local> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Pairs, none vulnerable. > The other three players are of better-than-average level. > > You hold : AQJx - Jxxx - x - Q109x > > The bidding : . > > 1D 1S X 2D > p 2S 3D 3S > p p 4D ? > > What do you bid ? > This is a tempo problem, of course. Partner hesitated before passing 3S. You bid only 3S on the previous round, thus you showed that for you not bidding 4S is an LA. You now have UI that demonstrably suggests bidding 4S. Your only chance for a decent score is to pass in tempo, and hope that partner gets it right. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From jmmgc1 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 16 15:06:31 2009 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?Sm9z6SBNaWd1ZWw=?= ) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:06:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: If I did'nt bid anything anyother thing in the previous round, I can't see any new information (or any new card) in this one. Double is the only (legal) LA that I can find, but I'm sure this is not the one that he really bids... Jos? Miguel -------Original Message------- From: Alain Gottcheiner Date: 16/11/2009 13:46:29 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List; Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem Pairs, none vulnerable. The other three players are of better-than-average level. You hold : AQJx - Jxxx - x - Q109x The bidding : . 1D 1S X 2D p 2S 3D 3S p p 4D ? What do you bid ? This is a tempo problem, of course. Partner hesitated before passing 3S. Thank you for your advice. Alain _______________________________________________ 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/20091116/46d2d473/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 7162 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091116/46d2d473/attachment-0001.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 31851 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091116/46d2d473/attachment-0001.gif From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 16 15:27:49 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:27:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B011CB6.4020005@skynet.be> References: <1N9Q95-1VJu3k0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <2da24b8e0911151439l2ca42d6dscc8dc5c769f68324@mail.gmail.com> <4B011CB6.4020005@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:34:46 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:39:24 -0500, richard willey >> wrote: >> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>>> Suppose Richard's opponents' profile says: >>>> >>>> "We both come from the former People's Republic of Ruritania. The >>>> former regime had 100% closed borders and 100% prohibition of >>>> communication with the outside world. At the state-run Duplicate >>>> Bridge schools all students were indoctrinated in the officially >>>> mandated bidding system, Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on >>>> request), with books on other bidding systems burned before reading. >>>> >>>> "This is our first BBO event since Ruritania's Diamond Revolution, >>>> which occurred at 4:55pm yesterday." >>>> >>>> Against those opponents Richard Willey's partner would have to >>>> alert Richard's unusual 1NT response, and explain that they had an >>>> implicit partnership understanding through mutual experience or >>>> awareness that the 1NT response did not have the normal meaning of an >>>> artificial game force relay. >>>> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> If you play any significant amount of online bridge, you quickly learn >>> the >>> following: >>> >>> 1. No one provides anything remotely equivalent to the level of >>> information >>> that your example suggests. >>> >>> 2. The information that people do provide typically bears only a >>> passing >>> relationship to reality. >>> >>> 3. The basic lexicon has been polluted beyond recovery. As far as I >>> can >>> tell, the expression SAYC pretty much means "We don't play Acol". Lord >>> help >>> you if they do claim to be playing Acol. >>> >>> Sadly, if your partner isn't someone you already know its going to take >>> you >>> half a dozen boards to figure out whats going on, and by then they've >>> probably left the table. >> >> >> Even at the table, I am not sure how well the laws correspond to how >> people make agreements nowadays. Suppose my partner and I agree to play >> Precision as described in a particular book. That's a clear agreement, >> but it might end up that my partner and I are playing conventions that >> neither one of is is aware of. >> >> Or, another real problem, we agree to play Rosenkrantz doubles, and then >> the question comes up if they are on over a balancing overcall. >> Presumably >> Rosenkrantz knows the answer to that question, but my partner and I do >> not. Does the director call Rosenkrantz to determine misinformation >> versus >> misbid? >> >> Drifting ever onward, when my partner and I agree to play "4th suit >> forcing to game" or "New Minor Forcing" or "RKC Blackwood", we are >> agreeing to somewhat elaborate conventions that we may (and have had) >> different understandings of. >> >> So when we agree to play "Standard American", what have we agreed to? >> > > You are argueing for the defence. > Now put on your director's hat and make a ruling where the opponents are > the non-offenders. > If two people have exactly the same idea of a piece of bidding, and they > say "we have no agreement", are they telling the truth or not? They > might be, but possibly they have more knowledge about what they both > consider "normal" under the circumstances. The Ruritanian example by > Richard is a fine one. > > Herman. For director decisions, it is irrelevant whether or not the statment "no agreement" is true. The issue is if they can convince me that "no agreement" is true, when I am presuming mistaken explanation. That is possible to do (and perhaps easy for on-line bridge), but it is not going to be very easy. I (club games) usually explain this problem and offer to let the player step away from the table so that partner may explain his own bid to the opps. This offer has always been accepted. Bob From henk at ripe.net Mon Nov 16 15:30:06 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:30:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B0161EE.8060605@ripe.net> Jos? Miguel wrote: > Click Me! Can you please remove your picture and other gif's from your mails? They trigger the spam filter, meaning that I have to do a few things by hand before the posting makes it through. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 16 15:33:31 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:33:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC casebook In-Reply-To: <3591739F0E8C439EA504AB7AE1E10A0A@erdos> References: <8B4E9C67A3A9491BB3497BC46F920D5A@MARVLAPTOP><8B89DED3FCA8413EB94CD6015F1A9879@erdos> <3591739F0E8C439EA504AB7AE1E10A0A@erdos> Message-ID: On Nov 15, 2009, at 9:12 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > My intention was to distinguish between a serious error (misbidding > because of a > mis-sorted hand) and a potential double shot (taking a known > abnormal action > with the expectation that there is no downside because of an > adjusted score). > If the NOS is entitled to an adjustment even if they make a serious > error that > is related to the infraction, you might still deny the adjustment > based on the > double shot. > > The actual TD ruling didn't mention the words "double shot"; > rather, it was that > North took an unreasonable action and had to suffer the consequences. A merely "unreasonable" action shouldn't have such consequences. For an action to be sufficiently "serioius" to trigger L12C1(b) it must be "egregious, glaring, foolish" [Kaplan]. There is a vast gulf of meaning between "unreasonable" and "egregious", and I am frequently troubled by the apparent inability of our TDs and ACs to recognize the distinction. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 16 16:12:48 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:12:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Nov 16, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Pairs, none vulnerable. > The other three players are of better-than-average level. > > You hold : AQJx - Jxxx - x - Q109x > > The bidding : . > > 1D 1S X 2D > p 2S 3D 3S > p p 4D ? > > What do you bid ? Pass. > This is a tempo problem, of course. Partner hesitated before > passing 3S. My LAs are pass and 4S; if pass were not an LA here, neither would 3S have been on the previous round. And partners BIT does seem to suggest that 4S might succeed. So the right answer is not just pass, but *pass in tempo*. 4S is likely to be the right contract if partner considers bidding it; you don't want to make it harder for him to do that by suggesting it by huddling. But wait -- do I have an ethical problem here? Had partner's BIT not constrained me, I would probably take some time to think about the position here. Was it not the UI from partner, suggesting that I do not want to discourage him from bidding 4S if he is so inclined, that caused me to adjust the tempo of my pass? Is this taking an action based on UI? Can there be circumstances in which it might be ethically questionable to *not* break tempo? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Mon Nov 16 16:17:56 2009 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:17:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure In-Reply-To: <4B014969.3060305@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B011B47.4020003@skynet.be> <4B014969.3060305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001301ca66cf$fa19f8f0$ee4dead0$@com> Alain writes: In Brussels, about 95% of the players (low estimation) play some form of Jacoby 2NT, but if they told me 'no agreement' I'd expect 2NT to be natural. ____________________________________________________________________________ When called as TD for such a case of "no agreement" I use to say something like "If there is no agreement, oppns will normally consider the call to be natural. Call me back if there is any problem." Some players who use the "no agreement" too frequently then remember.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Nov 16 16:21:47 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:21:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC appeals now combined In-Reply-To: <80AA2ABD5DDD43FAA8256AB742BF28EE@MARVLAPTOP> References: <80AA2ABD5DDD43FAA8256AB742BF28EE@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4B016E0B.2030707@aol.com> I agree. It costs time, effort and nerves to download the cases singly. The previous method where we could download them all at once was much better. Doesn't the ACBL care about pleasing its members? JE Marvin L French schrieb: > I have posted two new pdf files on my web site under Bridge Laws and > Regulations. At the bottom of that page are two pdf files that > combine both NABC+ and non-NABC+ cases from the Washington NABC. I > deleted the Boston NABC cases because the page is getting crowded > and I have no intention of maintaining a complete history of NABC > casebooks. > > Adam, the ACBL should be doing this. A "casebook" is a completed > volume, not a collection of individual cases. Before 2006 the cases > were combined into one pdf file and that policy should be resumed. > It took me only about 20 minutes. Mine could be copied onto the ACBL > web site, but the "not made here" attitude may prevent that. > > The ACBL used to sell printed casebooks at NABCs, but I suppose > some bean counter stopped the practice. > > 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Nov 16 16:22:22 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:22:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: You have what partner expects of you, so you can let partner make the decision. If you pass in tempo, partner may decide to compete to 4S, or to double 4D. If you bid 4S, not only should you receive an adjusted score, but you should also receive a procedural penalty (which might be just a warning if only the other three players at the table are better than average). When you bid 3S, you told partner that you would let him decide whether to bid 4S, and nothing subsequent has justified overriding that decision. The UI does demonstrably suggest bidding 4S, since the only thing partner could have been considering at his last turn was bidding game. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:46 AM Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem > Pairs, none vulnerable. > The other three players are of better-than-average level. > > You hold : AQJx - Jxxx - x - Q109x > > The bidding : . > > 1D 1S X 2D > p 2S 3D 3S > p p 4D ? > > What do you bid ? > This is a tempo problem, of course. Partner hesitated before passing 3S. > > Thank you for your advice. > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 16 16:25:06 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:25:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B016ED2.5020905@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > But wait -- do I have an ethical problem here? Had partner's BIT not > constrained me, I would probably take some time to think about the > position here. Was it not the UI from partner, suggesting that I do > not want to discourage him from bidding 4S if he is so inclined, that > caused me to adjust the tempo of my pass? Is this taking an action > based on UI? Can there be circumstances in which it might be > ethically questionable to *not* break tempo? > AG : not IMHO, because you can't expect they'll bid 4D over your pass of 3S. This isn't such a common occurrence (contrast with 3D over 2S). From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 16 16:33:28 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:33:28 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: <4B016ED2.5020905@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B016ED2.5020905@ulb.ac.be> <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20836837.1258385608098.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > > But wait -- do I have an ethical problem here? Had partner's BIT not > > constrained me, I would probably take some time to think about the > > position here. Was it not the UI from partner, suggesting that I do > > not want to discourage him from bidding 4S if he is so inclined, that > > caused me to adjust the tempo of my pass? Is this taking an action > > based on UI? Can there be circumstances in which it might be > > ethically questionable to *not* break tempo? > > > AG : not IMHO, because you can't expect they'll bid 4D over your pass of > 3S. This isn't such a common occurrence (contrast with 3D over 2S). Agree with Alain's nitpick, but with respect to Eric's perfectly valid question, I am not aware of anything in TFLB that requires a player to break tempo. The fact that your choices are limited by the UI you have is AI. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 16 16:57:37 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:57:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure In-Reply-To: <001301ca66cf$fa19f8f0$ee4dead0$@com> References: <4B011B47.4020003@skynet.be> <4B014969.3060305@ulb.ac.be> <001301ca66cf$fa19f8f0$ee4dead0$@com> Message-ID: <91618075-2C8B-4082-A684-12EAD2693155@starpower.net> On Nov 16, 2009, at 10:17 AM, laval dubreuil wrote: > Alain writes: > > In Brussels, about 95% of the players (low estimation) play some > form of > Jacoby 2NT, but if they told me 'no agreement' I'd expect 2NT to be > natural. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______ > > When called as TD for such a case of "no agreement" I use to say > something > like "If there is no agreement, oppns will normally consider the > call to be > natural. Call me back if there is any problem." > > Some players who use the "no agreement" too frequently then > remember.... The problem, as I see it, is that players use "no agreement", improperly, when they mean "no specific agreement". "No agreement", used properly, should mean "no relevant agreement" -- "a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement..." [L40B6(a)]. It's not that they "too frequently then remember", but rather that they too frequently manage to work it out. Alain's example illustrates the point. "We have no agreement," is very different in its implications from, "We have no specific agreement about 2NT, but we have agreed to play 'Brussels standard'." Where the latter is the truth, the former is improper, inadequate disclosure. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 16 17:27:48 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:27:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: <4B016ED2.5020905@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> <4B016ED2.5020905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Nov 16, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> But wait -- do I have an ethical problem here? Had partner's BIT not >> constrained me, I would probably take some time to think about the >> position here. Was it not the UI from partner, suggesting that I do >> not want to discourage him from bidding 4S if he is so inclined, that >> caused me to adjust the tempo of my pass? Is this taking an action >> based on UI? Can there be circumstances in which it might be >> ethically questionable to *not* break tempo? > > AG : not IMHO, because you can't expect they'll bid 4D over your > pass of > 3S. This isn't such a common occurrence (contrast with 3D over 2S). Perhaps I wasn't clear; the ethical issue isn't about the tempo of partner's pass of 3S -- we have a strong consensus there -- but about my own tempo passing 4D, after they've bid it in front of me. But, of course, the discussion I hoped to start isn't about this particular example, but rather, Can there *ever* be circumstances in which it might be ethically questionable not to break tempo? What are the ethical ramifications of taking atypical extra care to "bend over backwards" to avoid breaking tempo when you have UI from partner that suggests that it will be to your advantage to do so in a particular case? Might this be the "flip side" of the patently unethical practice of huddling for no legitimate reason, with an unusually bad hand, in the hope of discouraging an ethically aware partner from bidding on? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Mon Nov 16 19:24:50 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:24:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> <4B016ED2.5020905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <26864055.1258395890654.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau > But, of course, the discussion I hoped to start isn't about this > particular example, but rather, Can there *ever* be circumstances in > which it might be ethically questionable not to break tempo? What > are the ethical ramifications of taking atypical extra care to "bend > over backwards" to avoid breaking tempo when you have UI from partner > that suggests that it will be to your advantage to do so in a > particular case? Might this be the "flip side" of the patently > unethical practice of huddling for no legitimate reason, with an > unusually bad hand, in the hope of discouraging an ethically aware > partner from bidding on? I think one could conjure up a scenario where you have UI that there has been a misunderstanding, or that partner forgot system, or that partner is uncertain about system, where bidding in tempo would make it more likely that partner wakes up. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Nov 16 19:58:14 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:58:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Common cents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B01A0C6.80306@yahoo.co.uk> [William ("Kojak") Schoder, 27th August 2005] Neither you nor I can stop some significant bridge personalities, American or otherwise, from continuing to ignore Laws, Rules, and Regulations they don't agree with. Yet, I find it my duty and pleasure to let them know that we are aware when ego transcends professional performance. [Lorenz Hart (1895-1943), American songwriter] When love congeals It soon reveals The faint aroma of performing seals [Richard Hills, 19th May 2006] The problem with a director using their common sense to issue a ruling contrary to Law is that different directors have different opinions on what common sense is. If a Law is logically flawed, so that it violates _everybody's_ common sense, the solution is to amend or repeal that Law. [Nigel Guthrie, 19th May 2006, common sense] snip [Nigel] Richard goes on to quote several statements of mine. None advocate that the director issue a ruling contrary to law. I'm not a significant bridge personality and Kojak's statement wasn't about me. On the contrary, I think that you should comply with bad rules but campaign against them. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Nov 16 20:13:26 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:13:26 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Common cents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B01A456.4020005@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel Guthrie, 19th May 2006, common sense] IMO there are many completely unnecessary rules. For example... [A] Forbidding kibitzers to report alleged infractions (even suspected cheating) to the director. [Richard Hills, 16th November 2009, common sense] The revised 2007 Law 76 now clarifies that a spectator is not defined as a spectator for ever and ever Amen. Rather a spectator ceases to be a spectator after leaving the playing area and/or after the session ends. So then the spectator can report evidence of suspected cheating to the appropriate authority (e.g. the official Recorder). As for Nigel's common sense idea that a sponsor's hired kibitzer should be permitted (in the 2018 version of Law 76) to draw the sponsor's attention to an opponent's revoke, my common sense differs. [Nige1] I think the law should *encourage kibitzers to report putative infractions to the director. "The sponsor's hired kibitzer" is a creation of Richard's but I appreciate that might present a problem. From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Nov 16 20:30:53 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:30:53 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Common cents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B01A86D.5030303@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel 2006 continued] [B] Permitting law-breaking experts to deny a victim redress by "adding insult to injury". That is, by persuading the director that a *subsequent* action by their victim was "egregiously bad" or "wild and gambling". [Richard Hills, 16th November 2009, common sense] Law 10 and Law 81C make it clear that the Director, not the players, is responsible for the application and interpretation of the Lawbook. Of course, the Director may choose to seek advice about the Laws and/or the facts from the players (including dummy -- see Law 42A1). But the 2007 Law 12 has at least partially solved Nigel's concerns, as the non-offending side no longer loses any part of its rectification if its "serious error" is related to the infraction. [Nigel] As Marvin points out (eg in a recent ACBL case), directors, committees, and commentators still rate as "serious error" actions that (a) Could not occur without the putative infraction. (b) Many would not regard as a serious error (or wild and gambling). I believe that this daft rule deters ordinary players from calling the director. Experts are less prone to "egregious error" and much better at arguing that a seemingly "wild and gambling" action is sensible and logical (peruse any magazine bidding competition). From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 16 21:14:52 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:14:52 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC casebook References: <8B4E9C67A3A9491BB3497BC46F920D5A@MARVLAPTOP><8B89DED3FCA8413EB94CD6015F1A9879@erdos><3591739F0E8C439EA504AB7AE1E10A0A@erdos> Message-ID: From: "Eric Landau" > For > an action to be sufficiently "serioius" to trigger L12C1(b) it > must > be "egregious, glaring, foolish" [Kaplan]. There is a vast gulf > of > meaning between "unreasonable" and "egregious", and I am > frequently > troubled by the apparent inability of our TDs and ACs to recognize > the distinction. WBF LC 8 Sept 2009, affirming what Eric says: ...the standard for a 'serious error' must be extremely high and the calibre of the player is also relevant. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Nov 16 21:31:09 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:31:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Common cents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B01B68D.8000009@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel Guthrie, 19th May 2006, common sense] [C] Actively encouraging non-disclosure by introducing spurious excuses for the prevaricator such as "General knowledge and experience" and "I'm not certain so I mustn't guess" [Richard Hills, 16th November 2009, common sense quotes The revised 2007 wording in Law 40B6(a)] "...need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players". So if the particular questioning bridge player does not know about the "matters", then the "knowledge" is not "general" so therefore must be explained. [Nigel] If Richard is right about the meaning of this law, then it seems completely unnecessary. Under what realistic circumstances, can a director apply it? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 16 21:56:15 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:56:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Full Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0911160300lc9b21bcg7ea35b8ed0b22efa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >>If two people have exactly the same idea of a piece of bidding, >>and they say "we have no agreement", are they telling the truth >>or not? They might be, but possibly they have more knowledge >>about what they both consider "normal" under the circumstances. >>The Ruritanian example by Richard is a fine one. Richard Hills: The point I was trying to make was more subtle. If a 2-over-1 game-forcer and a SAYCer have slightly different but overlapping ideas of what 1NT shows, but their Ruritanian opponents expect an entirely different game force relay response, then stating "no special partnership understanding" is MI, since the Ruritanians will expect the normal Symmetric Relay defaults to apply. Steve Willner: >95% of the time that a situation like this comes up its in the >context of complete informal play. There is no director present. > >On occasion, there is a "director" present, however, said >director is rarely certified.? Their knowledge of the laws is >every bit as suspect as the player's knowledge of their >agreements.? As I recall, the normal procedure is to assign both >pairs an A+ to make them happy and make sure that they continue >to pay money to participate in tournaments. > >In all seriousness, I'm curious whether any of you actually have >any significant experience playing in online tournaments. Richard Hills: Zero online experience, for the reasons listed by Steve Willner in this post and in his earlier posts. Why should I play Lawless and Wild West online bridge with a random partner against MI- giving opponents? Steve Willner: >The arguments that you construct seem about as relevant to >online play as debating the number of angels that can dance on >the head of a pin. Richard Hills: I used Steve's online scenario as a springboard for discussing what the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge require. If online bridge is as Lawless as Steve describes, then there is no point in discussing computerised bridge qua computerised bridge on a bridge laws mailing list. Another disadvantage of replacing humans with computers -> Channel 4 (United Kingdom) News, 12th November 2009: A computer designed to mark A-level English exams has dismissed some of the most famous passages in the English language as repetitive, lacking care and incomprehensible. The Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors (CIEA) inputted some of the most famous passages of the century into the American programme system with some alarming results. The CIEA?ran some of the most famous passages of the 20th century through the American programme and found that, just like a spell-checker, it can recognise sentence structure but finds style and purpose difficult to understand. This?passage from Hemingway's The End of Something was criticised for "lack of care in style of writing" - In the old days Hortons Bay was a lumbering?town. No one who lived in it was out of sound of the big saws in the mill by the lake. William Golding's Lord of the Flies did not fare much better. The computer said this passage?had an?"inaccurate and erratic sentence structure" - You could see a knee disturb the mold. Now the other. Two hands. A Spear. A Face. And Winston?Churchill's most famous speech was described as "too repetitive" and "below average" - We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the street. Computers already mark some multiple choice GCSEs and there are moves to allow them to mark essay-style answers as they do in America. But?researchers there?have found that some students have worked out how to work around the non-human marker by?writing in a style the machine recognises as valid. They call it "schmoozing the computer". Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Nov 16 22:19:57 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:19:57 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Common cents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B01C1FD.7090005@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel Guthrie, 19th May 2006, common sense] [D] Equity rules and rules that allow calculated scores and other fudge rulings which tend to deprive the victim of adequate redress; and allow a director/committee to decide the result of an event on a whim, in a ruling against which it is almost impossible to appeal successfully. [big snip] [Richard Hills, 16th November 2009, common sense] Equity rules and rules that allow calculated scores and other just rulings tend to restore to the non-offending side adequate redress (as opposed to more-than-adequate windfalls which would occur if the deterrence of offending sides was based on score adjustments rather than the more logical procedural and/or disciplinary penalties). There is only one performing seal Director I know who might have decided a ruling on a whim; he alleged on blml that in a particular circumstance (his belief that an appeal was certain, due to the importance of the ruling) he might save time by tossing a coin. Of course, that performing seal Director would have had egg all over his face if: (a) his coin toss resulted in the wrong ruling, and (b) the coin-toss losing but deserving side lacked the 5000 common cents for the monetary deposit for the appeal. [Nigel] I don't advocate coin-tosses. I simply think that Equity law - does not deter law-breakers sufficiently and - provides inadequate incentive to their victims to report infractions. Richard's "big snip" probably explained my reasons, summarised below... [1] The law should *deter* law-breakers. Specifically, the law should try to ensure that the law-breaker has a negative expectation of long-term gain. The law should allow for those times when infractions are not noticed, not reported, and not ruled against. For example, simply restoring the status-quo, can leave the law-breaker in long-term profit. [2] The law should actively encourage the reporting of infractions. Some current laws seem to go the other way. For example ... [a) Spectators may not report their suspicions to the director. (b) Victims may be deprived of redress (and hence deprived of incentive to call the director) when the director might deem that (i) They're guilty of "egregious" error. Or (ii) They "failed to protect themselves" from a failure to alert, say. [3] In practice, the law about weighted scores (12C1c) seems to reduce deterrence and redress. I surmise that is also hard to appeal, even when a weighting adjustment would alter the result of a competition. [4] Players resent procedural and disciplinary penalties. They're rarely and haphazardly enforced. In practice, they don't make up for the lack of adequate deterrence and redress in the ordinary law. A belated "Thank you Richard" for addressing my concerns :) From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 16 22:24:42 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:24:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Common cents In-Reply-To: <4B01B68D.8000009@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B01B68D.8000009@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <13BB1C47-67E5-47DB-A126-AA9BE9D728EC@starpower.net> On Nov 16, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nigel Guthrie, 19th May 2006, common sense] > [C] Actively encouraging non-disclosure by introducing spurious > excuses > for the prevaricator such as "General knowledge and experience" and > "I'm > not certain so I mustn't guess" > > [Richard Hills, 16th November 2009, common sense quotes The revised > 2007 > wording in Law 40B6(a)] > "...need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and > experience > of matters generally known to bridge players". > So if the particular questioning bridge player does not know about the > "matters", then the "knowledge" is not "general" so therefore must be > explained. > > [Nigel] > If Richard is right about the meaning of this law, then it seems > completely unnecessary. Under what realistic circumstances, can a > director apply it? When some bridge lawyer claims to have been misled by the omission of a particular point of disclosure that the director has reason to believe that he knows full well, or obviously should know, or had to have been aware of the omission of. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 16 22:44:48 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:44:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Full Disclosure of typographical error [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Since I am as old as the Hills, I had a senior moment, incorrectly attributing to Steve WILLner comments which were actually written by Richard WILLey. My apologies to both gentlemen. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets ----- Forwarded by Richard Hills/ACT/IMMI/AU on 11/17/09 08:39 AM ----- Richard Hills/ACT/IMMI/AU To 11/17/09 07:56 AM Bridge Laws Mailing List cc Subject Re: [BLML] Full Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL](Document link: Richard Hills) Protective Mark UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael: [snip] >>If two people have exactly the same idea of a piece of bidding, >>and they say "we have no agreement", are they telling the truth >>or not? They might be, but possibly they have more knowledge >>about what they both consider "normal" under the circumstances. >>The Ruritanian example by Richard is a fine one. Richard Hills: The point I was trying to make was more subtle. If a 2-over-1 game-forcer and a SAYCer have slightly different but overlapping ideas of what 1NT shows, but their Ruritanian opponents expect an entirely different game force relay response, then stating "no special partnership understanding" is MI, since the Ruritanians will expect the normal Symmetric Relay defaults to apply. Steve Willner: >95% of the time that a situation like this comes up its in the >context of complete informal play. There is no director present. > >On occasion, there is a "director" present, however, said >director is rarely certified.? Their knowledge of the laws is >every bit as suspect as the player's knowledge of their >agreements.? As I recall, the normal procedure is to assign both >pairs an A+ to make them happy and make sure that they continue >to pay money to participate in tournaments. > >In all seriousness, I'm curious whether any of you actually have >any significant experience playing in online tournaments. Richard Hills: Zero online experience, for the reasons listed by Steve Willner in this post and in his earlier posts. Why should I play Lawless and Wild West online bridge with a random partner against MI- giving opponents? Steve Willner: >The arguments that you construct seem about as relevant to >online play as debating the number of angels that can dance on >the head of a pin. Richard Hills: I used Steve's online scenario as a springboard for discussing what the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge require. If online bridge is as Lawless as Steve describes, then there is no point in discussing computerised bridge qua computerised bridge on a bridge laws mailing list. Another disadvantage of replacing humans with computers -> Channel 4 (United Kingdom) News, 12th November 2009: A computer designed to mark A-level English exams has dismissed some of the most famous passages in the English language as repetitive, lacking care and incomprehensible. The Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors (CIEA) inputted some of the most famous passages of the century into the American programme system with some alarming results. The CIEA?ran some of the most famous passages of the 20th century through the American programme and found that, just like a spell-checker, it can recognise sentence structure but finds style and purpose difficult to understand. This?passage from Hemingway's The End of Something was criticised for "lack of care in style of writing" - In the old days Hortons Bay was a lumbering?town. No one who lived in it was out of sound of the big saws in the mill by the lake. William Golding's Lord of the Flies did not fare much better. The computer said this passage?had an?"inaccurate and erratic sentence structure" - You could see a knee disturb the mold. Now the other. Two hands. A Spear. A Face. And Winston?Churchill's most famous speech was described as "too repetitive" and "below average" - We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the street. Computers already mark some multiple choice GCSEs and there are moves to allow them to mark essay-style answers as they do in America. But?researchers there?have found that some students have worked out how to work around the non-human marker by?writing in a style the machine recognises as valid. They call it "schmoozing the computer". Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 17 01:06:10 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:06:10 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Full Disclosure of typographical error [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <019FE23348194F4EB65EAF7972882855@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "richard willey" ; "Steve Willner" Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:44 PM Subject: [BLML] Fw: Full Disclosure of typographical error [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Since I am as old as the Hills, I had a senior moment, incorrectly attributing to Steve WILLner comments which were actually written by Richard WILLey. My apologies to both gentlemen. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 < +=+ Where there's a will.........+=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 17 01:12:41 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:12:41 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Common cents References: <4B01B68D.8000009@yahoo.co.uk> <13BB1C47-67E5-47DB-A126-AA9BE9D728EC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <392584A5B49B4B88AB98C3A51D511895@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > On Nov 16, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Nigel Guthrie, 19th May 2006, common sense] >> [C] Actively encouraging non-disclosure by introducing spurious >> excuses >> for the prevaricator such as "General knowledge and experience" >> and >> "I'm >> not certain so I mustn't guess" >> >> [Richard Hills, 16th November 2009, common sense quotes The >> revised >> 2007 >> wording in Law 40B6(a)] >> "...need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and >> experience >> of matters generally known to bridge players". >> So if the particular questioning bridge player does not know >> about the >> "matters", then the "knowledge" is not "general" so therefore >> must be >> explained. There is a difference between general knowledge and universal knowledge. Many bridge players do not know what should be general knowledge for their level of experience, through sheer laziness. They have never studied the subject, never even read a book. Almost everything they know comes from the bridge table, a poor source of knowledge. I refuse to teach bridge to an ACBL ignoramus who has been playing duplicate regularly for 30 years. I just Googled "General Knowledge" and up came a host of sites that test people on the subject, which indicates that such knowledge is not known to everyone. Taking an "advanced" quiz I had forgotten which planet has a moon named Triton. That's general knowledge for my level of science literacy, but I didn't know it off-hand. It's Neptune. >> >> [Nigel] >> If Richard is right about the meaning of this law, then it seems >> completely unnecessary. Under what realistic circumstances, can a >> director apply it? > > When some bridge lawyer claims to have been misled by the omission > of > a particular point of disclosure that the director has reason to > believe that he knows full well, or obviously should know, or had > to > have been aware of the omission of. "Obviously should know" is key. Many self-satisfied non-lawyers enjoy their ignorance and do not know what they should know. Most are nice people, please don't call them lawyers. "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" - Thomas Gray Not at the bridge table, Thomas. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Nov 17 01:43:51 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:43:51 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Common cents In-Reply-To: <392584A5B49B4B88AB98C3A51D511895@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4B01B68D.8000009@yahoo.co.uk> <13BB1C47-67E5-47DB-A126-AA9BE9D728EC@starpower.net> <392584A5B49B4B88AB98C3A51D511895@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0911161643k4908f099o918984525891f643@mail.gmail.com> From: "Marvin L French": > > From: "Eric Landau" >> >> When some bridge lawyer claims to have been misled by the omission >> of >> a particular point of disclosure that the director has reason to >> believe that he knows full well, or obviously should know, or had >> to >> have been aware of the omission of. > > "Obviously should know" is key. Many self-satisfied non-lawyers > enjoy their ignorance and do not know what they should know. Most > are nice people, please don't call them lawyers. > I am having some difficulty seeing what we're talking about here. What are some examples of what a bridge player "obviously should know" about their opponents' understandings even if it is not specifically disclosed? Are Eric and Marv thinking of something unmentioned because it is too ridiculously simple, such as knowing that a Blackwood bidder is interested in slam or that a forcing call is often passed in traffic? Or are they thinking of details of locally popular agreements that need not be disclosed if everyone has seen it often enough? Or perhaps simply what the basic alert regulations are, such as that common negative doubles are not alertable in the ACBL? Jerry Fusselman From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Nov 17 02:02:45 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:02:45 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Common cents In-Reply-To: <392584A5B49B4B88AB98C3A51D511895@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4B01B68D.8000009@yahoo.co.uk> <13BB1C47-67E5-47DB-A126-AA9BE9D728EC@starpower.net> <392584A5B49B4B88AB98C3A51D511895@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4B01F635.8090603@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel Guthrie, 19th May 2006, common sense] [C] Actively encouraging non-disclosure by introducing spurious excuses for the prevaricator such as "General knowledge and experience" ... [Richard Hills, 16th November 2009, quotes The revised 2007 Law 40B6(a)] "...need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players". So if the particular questioning bridge player does not know about the "matters", then the "knowledge" is not "general" so therefore must be explained. [Marvin L French] There is a difference between general knowledge and universal knowledge. Many bridge players do not know what should be general knowledge for their level of experience, through sheer laziness. They have never studied the subject, never even read a book. Almost everything they know comes from the bridge table, a poor source of knowledge. I refuse to teach bridge to an ACBL ignoramus who has been playing duplicate regularly for 30 years. I just Googled "General Knowledge" and up came a host of sites that test people on the subject, which indicates that such knowledge is not known to everyone. Taking an "advanced" quiz I had forgotten which planet has a moon named Triton. That's general knowledge for my level of science literacy, but I didn't know it off-hand. It's Neptune. [Nigel] Many players won't "teach their opponents Bridge". Like Marvin they refuse to enlighten experienced opponents, who, in their opinion, are too lazy to acquaint themselves of what should be general knowledge. It is easy to understand why so many Bridge players interpret the law this way; although I suspect that it is not what law-makers intend. There would be less of a problem if the law-book made no mention of "general knowledge". From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Nov 17 02:29:10 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:29:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Common cents In-Reply-To: <392584A5B49B4B88AB98C3A51D511895@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4B01B68D.8000009@yahoo.co.uk> <13BB1C47-67E5-47DB-A126-AA9BE9D728EC@starpower.net> <392584A5B49B4B88AB98C3A51D511895@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4B01FC66.6050902@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] If Richard is right about the meaning of this law, then it seems completely unnecessary. Under what realistic circumstances, can a director apply it? [Eric Landau] When some bridge lawyer claims to have been misled by the omission of a particular point of disclosure that the director has reason to believe that he knows full well, or obviously should know, or had to have been aware of the omission of. [Marvin] "Obviously should know" is key. Many self-satisfied non-lawyers enjoy their ignorance and do not know what they should know. Most are nice people, please don't call them lawyers. "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" - Thomas Gray Not at the bridge table, Thomas. [Nige2] I was about to agree (reluctantly) with Eric Landau. Just in time, I read Marvin's take on what Eric wrote. Marvin highlights a frequent difficulty I have with what opponents term "general knowledge". Often I'm unfamiliar with it and even when (too late) I find out what it is, I don't want to remember it, and don't see why I should be expected to know it. IMO, it's easier for a director to judge - - whether one side has given a reasonably complete explanation, than - whether the other side should know the obvious gaps in an incomplete explanation. For the latter judgement, the director may need to mind-read. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 17 04:10:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:10:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Common cents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <392584A5B49B4B88AB98C3A51D511895@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>>If Richard is right about the meaning of this law, then it seems >>>completely unnecessary. Under what realistic circumstances, can >>>a director apply it? Eric Landau: >>When some bridge lawyer claims to have been misled by the >>omission of a particular point of disclosure that the director >>has reason to believe that he knows full well, or obviously >>should know, or had to have been aware of the omission of. Marvin French: >"Obviously should know" is key. Many self-satisfied non-lawyers >enjoy their ignorance and do not know what they should know. Most >are nice people, please don't call them lawyers. > >"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" - Thomas Gray > >Not at the bridge table, Thomas. Thomas Gray, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College (1747): Alas, regardless of their doom, The little victims play! No sense have they of ills to come, Nor care beyond to-day. Blissfully wise comment from Grattan Endicott, 9th October 2009: +=+ 1. I wonder if "my general knowledge and experience" was "of matters generally known to bridge players"? Or has the 2007 book changed the effect of the law? [snip] 1997 Law 75C: "...need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." 2007 Law 40B6(a): "...need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Richard Hills: Since the Drafting Committee intentionally changed the _wording_ of the so-called GBK clause from its 1997 version, perhaps the Drafting Committee also intended the _meaning_ of the so-called GBK clause to be different in the 2007 Lawbook??? The wording of a Law corresponding with the meaning of that Law? What a radical thought. :-) But..... 2007 Introduction, concluding sentence: "Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine, and vice versa." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 17 09:29:00 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> <4B016ED2.5020905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B025ECC.9080605@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > Perhaps I wasn't clear; the ethical issue isn't about the tempo of > partner's pass of 3S -- we have a strong consensus there -- but about > my own tempo passing 4D, after they've bid it in front of me. > > But, of course, the discussion I hoped to start isn't about this > particular example, but rather, Can there *ever* be circumstances in > which it might be ethically questionable not to break tempo? AG : There are. that's what mandatory pauses are made for. You seem to want it extended to any high-level competitive auction, even without any skip bid. This could be a good idea, and not too difficult to implement. > What > are the ethical ramifications of taking atypical extra care to "bend > over backwards" to avoid breaking tempo when you have UI from partner > that suggests that it will be to your advantage to do so in a > particular case? Might this be the "flip side" of the patently > unethical practice of huddling for no legitimate reason, with an > unusually bad hand, in the hope of discouraging an ethically aware > partner from bidding on? > AG : this practice is less frequent than blatant use of UI. And it's fairly easy to spot, and there is at least one law (74 something) that allows us to penalize it. For all those reasons, I'm less wary of such situations than of classical UI cases. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 17 09:41:07 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:41:07 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Common cents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <519A04A9893344E896AA8101A9067057@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Common cents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [snippety snip] > > 1997 Law 75C: > > "...need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge > and experience." > > 2007 Law 40B6(a): > > "...need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and > experience of matters generally known to bridge players." > > Richard Hills: > > Since the Drafting Committee intentionally changed the _wording_ > of the so-called GBK clause from its 1997 version, perhaps the > Drafting Committee also intended the _meaning_ of the so-called > GBK clause to be different in the 2007 Lawbook??? > +=+ Or perhaps thre 2007 Drafing Committee sought to express what they thought the 1997 committee intended? ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 17 09:45:44 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:45:44 -0000 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> <4B016ED2.5020905@ulb.ac.be> <4B025ECC.9080605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] yet another tempo problem Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > Perhaps I wasn't clear; the ethical issue isn't about the tempo of > partner's pass of 3S -- we have a strong consensus there -- but about > my own tempo passing 4D, after they've bid it in front of me. > > But, of course, the discussion I hoped to start isn't about this > particular example, but rather, Can there *ever* be circumstances in > which it might be ethically questionable not to break tempo? AG : There are. that's what mandatory pauses are made for. You seem to want it extended to any high-level competitive auction, even without any skip bid. This could be a good idea, and not too difficult to implement. > What > are the ethical ramifications of taking atypical extra care to "bend > over backwards" to avoid breaking tempo when you have UI from partner > that suggests that it will be to your advantage to do so in a > particular case? Might this be the "flip side" of the patently > unethical practice of huddling for no legitimate reason, with an > unusually bad hand, in the hope of discouraging an ethically aware > partner from bidding on? > AG : this practice is less frequent than blatant use of UI. And it's fairly easy to spot, and there is at least one law (74 something) that allows us to penalize it. For all those reasons, I'm less wary of such situations than of classical UI cases. << +=+ The question is how to meet the standards in Laws 74A3 and 73D. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 17 15:24:21 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:24:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Common cents In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0911161643k4908f099o918984525891f643@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B01B68D.8000009@yahoo.co.uk> <13BB1C47-67E5-47DB-A126-AA9BE9D728EC@starpower.net> <392584A5B49B4B88AB98C3A51D511895@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0911161643k4908f099o918984525891f643@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9FE348C2-5DBB-489B-95A8-ABEA76480FD6@starpower.net> On Nov 16, 2009, at 7:43 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > From: "Marvin L French": > >> From: "Eric Landau" >> >>> When some bridge lawyer claims to have been misled by the omission >>> of >>> a particular point of disclosure that the director has reason to >>> believe that he knows full well, or obviously should know, or had >>> to >>> have been aware of the omission of. >> >> "Obviously should know" is key. Many self-satisfied non-lawyers >> enjoy their ignorance and do not know what they should know. Most >> are nice people, please don't call them lawyers. > > I am having some difficulty seeing what we're talking about here. > What are some examples of what a bridge player "obviously should know" > about their opponents' understandings even if it is not specifically > disclosed? > > Are Eric and Marv thinking of something unmentioned because it is too > ridiculously simple, such as knowing that a Blackwood bidder is > interested in slam or that a forcing call is often passed in traffic? > > Or are they thinking of details of locally popular agreements that > need not be disclosed if everyone has seen it often enough? Or > perhaps simply what the basic alert regulations are, such as that > common negative doubles are not alertable in the ACBL? Two A-level examples: (1) A player claiming he would have selected a more effective opening lead had he been alerted that opponent's passed-hand jump implied support for opener's suit, denied redress on the grounds that this was a standard practice he should have at least been aware of the possibility of, and should have known to check for. (2) A player, himself playing 2-over-1, claiming that he would not have intervened over opponent's, also playing 2-over-1, 1NT response to his partner's opening bid had it been properly announced as forcing, denied redress on the grounds that he should have known that forcing (or semi-forcing, also announceable) 1NT responses are a defining characteristic of 2-over-1 methods (given that he played these methods himself), and should have known to check. In both cases it was felt that there may have been some possibility that the player in question was attempting to get "something for nothing" from the TD as a result of an inconsequential technical infraction by an opponent. Full disclosure: Same player in both cases, known for trying on stuff like this, AFAIK not a lawyer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 17 14:10:48 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:10:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. Message-ID: Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan Endicott] ******************************** Where there's a will ........ meet the family. "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' +=+ The EBU has reviewed its advice to its TDs on the assessment of logical alternatives. Slight changes have been made in the text. The new guidance is quoted below. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Advice to Appeals Committees and Tournament Directors on the impact of the 2007 Laws regarding logical alternatives Revised November 2009 Abbreviations AC Appeals Committee; LA Logical Alternative; TD Tournament Director Is an action a logical alternative? Law 16B1(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. When deciding whether an action constitutes an LA under the 2007 Laws, the TD should decide two things. 1.He should decide whether a significant proportion of the player's peers, playing the same system as the player, would consider the action. What is a "significant proportion"? The Laws do not specify a figure, but the TD should assume that it means at least one player in five. If fewer than about one player in five of a player's peers would consider the action then it is not a Logical alternative. 2. If a significant proportion would consider the action, then the TD should next decide whether some would actually choose it. Again the Laws do not specify a figure for "some", and the TD should assume that it means more than just an isolated exception. If no one or almost no one would choose the action having considered it, the action is not an LA. "Serious consideration" means considerable. It is more than a passing thought. Method Asking players for opinions is helpful in deciding whether an action would be considered and chosen, but the questions should be carefully presented. For example, in a hesitation case players should be given the problem without reference to the hesitation. The TD should ask them what they would call after the given sequence, telling them the methods employed. If their answer is not the action under consideration, they should be asked what alternatives they considered. Such polls will help to give the TD an idea of whether an action is an LA. What should an AC do if the ruling is appealed? They may ask the TD for details of any poll he took. They could consider their own poll, but this will not usually be practical. They should be aware that the old "70% rule" is not in force now. They should be aware that this is a judgment area, and may take into account the experience of the players. [Nigel] For years, I have argued for what I regard as an important second stage in the polling process; and again I seem to have been ignored :( After establishing what the LAs are , in the way suggested above, the director should - tell each polled player "There was UI (hesitation or whatever)" and then - ask "which action(s) does that UI suggest?" This helps to ensure that the recipient of UI is not damned no matter which LA he chooses. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Nov 18 04:21:24 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:21:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. In-Reply-To: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos> "Nigel Guthrie" writes: > For years, I have argued for what I regard as an important second stage > in the polling process; and again I seem to have been ignored :( > > After establishing what the LAs are , in the way suggested above, the > director should > - tell each polled player "There was UI (hesitation or whatever)" and then > - ask "which action(s) does that UI suggest?" > > This helps to ensure that the recipient of UI is not damned no matter > which LA he chooses. And, equally important, is penalized based on what his peers believe is suggested. In Houston non-NABC+ case 8, the auction was 1NT-2H-2S-..3S-4S by a Flight C pair. In Flight A, the slow bid wouldn't demonstrable suggest extra values, because most Flight A players play 4S on this auction as a slam try; it would either suggest minimal values (considering pass) or distributional values (considering a second suit,or 2NT with only five spades). But a poll of Flight C players concluded that the slow 3S suggests extra values in Flight C, and therefore an adjusted score was awarded. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 18 07:10:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:10:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Common cents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B01A456.4020005@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>As for Nigel's common sense idea that a sponsor's hired kibitzer >>should be permitted (in the 2018 version of Law 76) to draw the >>sponsor's attention to an opponent's revoke, my common sense >>differs. Nigel Guthrie: >I think the law should *encourage kibitzers to report putative >infractions to the director. "The sponsor's hired kibitzer" is a >creation of Richard's but I appreciate that might present a problem. Jerry Sohl, "Underhanded Bridge" (1975), pages 107-108: A woman player I know actually pays for hangers-on who are referred to as her entourage. She is like what she must imagine the queen mother to be: regal and condescending. Beginning players and the easily intimidated are affected by this grand show. They ask themselves, Why are those people following her every move (table to table) and her every play? Why are they all holding their breath like that? Experienced players ignore the followers and are on to her little trick, yet it is a psychological ploy that is not easily dismissed. It works its magic because of sheer numbers, the trappings, and the royal demeanor of the woman. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 08:58:51 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:58:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2009/11/16 Alain Gottcheiner : > Pairs, none vulnerable. > The other three players are of better-than-average level. > > You hold : AQJx - Jxxx - x - Q109x > > The bidding : . > > 1D ? 1S ? X ? ? ? 2D > p ? ? ?2S ? 3D ? ? 3S > p ? ? ?p ? ? 4D ? ? ? > I strongly disagree with my previous bidding. 3D on the first round of bidding is clearcut, showing my stiff and values for at least the 3-level. > What do you bid ? As it is, I have to live with my bidding so far. As I didn't bid more than 3S last round, pass is certainly a logical alternative now. Partner's hesitation clearly indicates that he was considering raising to game. Thus I've got to pass now. > This is a tempo problem, of course. Partner hesitated before passing 3S. > > Thank you for your advice. > > ?Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 18 09:43:55 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:43:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. In-Reply-To: <116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos> References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk> <116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos> Message-ID: <4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be> David Grabiner a ?crit : > "Nigel Guthrie" writes: > > >> For years, I have argued for what I regard as an important second stage >> in the polling process; and again I seem to have been ignored :( >> >> After establishing what the LAs are , in the way suggested above, the >> director should >> - tell each polled player "There was UI (hesitation or whatever)" and then >> - ask "which action(s) does that UI suggest?" >> >> This helps to ensure that the recipient of UI is not damned no matter >> which LA he chooses. >> > > And, equally important, is penalized based on what his peers believe is > suggested. > > In Houston non-NABC+ case 8, the auction was 1NT-2H-2S-..3S-4S by a Flight C > pair. In Flight A, the slow bid wouldn't demonstrable suggest extra values, > because most Flight A players play 4S on this auction as a slam try; AG : I'd said it's the opposite. When playing 4S as a slam try (what about 1NT-3S, BTW ?), you can't punt 4S in this auction. So you might have painted yourself into a corner and be compelled to bid only 3, /volens nolens, with a hand worth 3?/. No such thing if 4S is conclusive. I have the strong feeling that the main principle behind this ruling is the one behind /The Wolf and the Lamb/. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 18 09:47:14 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:47:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] yet another tempo problem In-Reply-To: References: <4B0149A3.4030404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B03B492.9010608@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2009/11/16 Alain Gottcheiner : > >> Pairs, none vulnerable. >> The other three players are of better-than-average level. >> >> You hold : AQJx - Jxxx - x - Q109x >> >> The bidding : . >> >> 1D 1S X 2D >> p 2S 3D 3S >> p p 4D ? >> >> > I strongly disagree with my previous bidding. 3D on the first round of > bidding is clearcut, showing my stiff and values for at least the > 3-level. > > AG : Surely you would have bid 3D, but in my country this is a mixed raise. This hand is a bit strong for that. BTW, I had this hand and chose 3C (FJ). From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Nov 18 13:54:11 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:54:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <4AFD5DDD.20501@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4AFC5F6D.4030405@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AFCC799.9080703@nhcc.net> <346EB5F3-87CF-4488-A6E8-562B12531C76@btinternet.com> <4AFD5DDD.20501@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On 13 Nov 2009, at 13:23, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > In any case, Max Bavin and the WBF recommend a more liberal > interpretation. I think this is probably an overbid. The WBF minute and the EBU's revised policy in response to it (as written by Max Bavin) can be found in Appendix A of the L&E minutes at http://www.ebu.co.uk/ publications/Minutes%20and%20Reports/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Committee/ 2009/19%20may.pdf In particular, the summary says: There is not yet sufficient precedent to allow an exact definition of where the line is between replacement calls allowed with 27B1b under the more liberal regime and those still not permitted. A guiding principle is that if there is a small number of very specific hands included in the replacement call that were not part of the original then the substitution should usually be allowed without penalty (examples i, ii and iii above). If however the replacement call gives significant additional information about the general strength or distribution of the hand then a correction under 27B1b should not be permitted. The Director can focus solely on the basic meaning of the calls and allow the change without penalty if the replacement call has the same basic meaning as, or a more precise meaning already fully incorporated within, the original call. He does not need to delve into the multitude of potential subtle negative inferences that may be available. But the stretch does not extend so far as to allow things that are plainly different, for example in respect of suit length or point range - these are still subject to the strict interpretation of Law 27 as written in the law book. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Nov 18 13:57:24 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:57:24 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <4AFE20D7.5070305@nhcc.net> References: <4AFD8403.3070403@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AFE20D7.5070305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <78953E30-00CC-4A55-A946-65893B074225@btinternet.com> On 14 Nov 2009, at 03:15, Steve Willner wrote: > Are you thinking 2C is game forcing? It isn't for most players in > North > America. I wasn't aware of that. How unfortunate. > If the 2C opener has a spade one-suiter, and responder is > weak, the auction can end at 3S. > > In contrast, a 2S overcall of 2H should show a decent hand, though > some > will stretch with a heart void. 3S is stronger than 2S, and 4S is > stronger than 3S. What hand can you construct that bids 4S but > wouldn't > have opened 2C? Maybe ten solid spades and out, but that's a rare > hand > type that seems not worth worrying about. Something like AK to eight and an outside AQ is likely to overcall 4S, but certainly wouldn't open 2C. Don't forget that all the really strong hands are almost bound to start with a double. > > Of course my bridge judgment may be flawed, but I'm not convinced yet. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 18 14:04:49 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:04:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: References: <4AFC5F6D.4030405@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AFCC799.9080703@nhcc.net> <346EB5F3-87CF-4488-A6E8-562B12531C76@btinternet.com> <4AFD5DDD.20501@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B03F0F1.3030507@ulb.ac.be> Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > On 13 Nov 2009, at 13:23, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> In any case, Max Bavin and the WBF recommend a more liberal >> interpretation. >> > > I think this is probably an overbid. The WBF minute and the EBU's > revised policy in response to it (as written by Max Bavin) can be > found in Appendix A of the L&E minutes at http://www.ebu.co.uk/ > publications/Minutes%20and%20Reports/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Committee/ > 2009/19%20may.pdf > > In particular, the summary says: > > > There is not yet sufficient precedent to allow an exact definition of > where the line is between replacement calls allowed with 27B1b under > the more liberal regime and those still not permitted. A guiding > principle is that if there is a small number of very specific hands > included in the replacement call that were not part of the original > then the substitution should usually be allowed without penalty > (examples i, ii and iii above). If however the replacement call gives > significant additional information about the general strength or > distribution of the hand then a correction under 27B1b should not be > permitted. > AG : am I wrong or are they ? Isn't it "if the replaced call gives additional informations" ?? From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 18 15:31:38 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:31:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: References: <4AFC5F6D.4030405@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AFCC799.9080703@nhcc.net> <346EB5F3-87CF-4488-A6E8-562B12531C76@btinternet.com> <4AFD5DDD.20501@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <75DC43C9-8DB4-4FB6-A255-C8B087CF6CB2@starpower.net> On Nov 18, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > I think this is probably an overbid. The WBF minute and the EBU's > revised policy in response to it (as written by Max Bavin) can be > found in Appendix A of the L&E minutes at http://www.ebu.co.uk/ > publications/Minutes%20and%20Reports/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Committee/ > 2009/19%20may.pdf > > In particular, the summary says: > > There is not yet sufficient precedent to allow an exact definition of > where the line is between replacement calls allowed with 27B1b under > the more liberal regime and those still not permitted. A guiding > principle is that if there is a small number of very specific hands > included in the replacement call that were not part of the original > then the substitution should usually be allowed without penalty > (examples i, ii and iii above). If however the replacement call gives > significant additional information about the general strength or > distribution of the hand then a correction under 27B1b should not be > permitted. I hope this is misquoted, because it is wrong. The correct criterion isn't whether "the replacement call (RC) gives significant additional information" relative to the IB, but whether the IB gives significant additional information relative to the RC. > 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. Note that this sentence, which is correct, directly contradicts the previous one. "The RC has... a more precise meaning" means the same thing as "the RC gives significant additional information". > 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 nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Nov 18 22:28:34 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:28:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <75DC43C9-8DB4-4FB6-A255-C8B087CF6CB2@starpower.net> References: <4AFC5F6D.4030405@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AFCC799.9080703@nhcc.net> <346EB5F3-87CF-4488-A6E8-562B12531C76@btinternet.com> <4AFD5DDD.20501@yahoo.co.uk> <75DC43C9-8DB4-4FB6-A255-C8B087CF6CB2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B046702.1050604@yahoo.co.uk> [Gordon Rainsford] I think this is probably an overbid. The WBF minute and the EBU's revised policy in response to it (as written by Max Bavin) can be found in Appendix A of the L&E minutes at http://www.ebu.co.uk/ publications/Minutes%20and%20Reports/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Committee/ 2009/19%20may.pdf. In particular, the summary says: There is not yet sufficient precedent to allow an exact definition of where the line is between replacement calls allowed with 27B1b under the more liberal regime and those still not permitted. A guiding principle is that if there is a small number of very specific hands included in the replacement call that were not part of the original then the substitution should usually be allowed without penalty ... [Eric Landau] I hope this is misquoted, because it is wrong. The correct criterion isn't whether "the replacement call (RC) gives significant additional information" relative to the IB, but whether the IB gives significant additional information relative to the RC. [Gordon Rainsford] 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. [Eric Landau] Note that this sentence, which is correct, directly contradicts the previous one. "The RC has... a more precise meaning" means the same thing as "the RC gives significant additional information". [Gordon Rainsford] 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] Again, when interpreting the meaning sophisticated Bridge Laws, one man's "overbid" is another's "underbid" :) Frightening when it strikes you that the law insists that the director make so many subjective judgements about the facts of a case, *after* trying to unravel such woolly laws :( From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Nov 19 02:22:28 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:22:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. In-Reply-To: <4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be> References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk><116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos> <4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: "Alain Gottcheiner" writes: >David Grabiner a ?crit : >> In Houston non-NABC+ case 8, the auction was 1NT-2H-2S-..3S-4S by a Flight C >> pair. In Flight A, the slow bid wouldn't demonstrable suggest extra values, >> because most Flight A players play 4S on this auction as a slam try; >AG : I'd said it's the opposite. >When playing 4S as a slam try (what about 1NT-3S, BTW ?), you can't punt >4S in this auction. So you might have painted yourself into a corner and >be compelled to bid only 3, /volens nolens, with a hand worth 3?/. >No such thing if 4S is conclusive. The more common treatment in the US is that if you want to sign off in 4S, you use a Texas transfer; 1NT-4H-4S must be passed, while 1NT-2H-2S-4S is a mild slam invitation. (1NT-3S can either be a slam try with five spades, or can be used for something else.) Flight C players, who aren't familiar with this agreement and haven't thought about the redundancy of playing two sequences with identical meaning, may bid 1NT-2H-2S-4S with just a game hand. From blml at arcor.de Thu Nov 19 02:35:18 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:35:18 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. In-Reply-To: References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk><116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos> <4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <19462287.1258594518795.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> David Grabiner > "Alain Gottcheiner" writes: > > >David Grabiner a ?crit : > > >> In Houston non-NABC+ case 8, the auction was 1NT-2H-2S-..3S-4S by a Flight C > >> pair. In Flight A, the slow bid wouldn't demonstrable suggest extra values, > >> because most Flight A players play 4S on this auction as a slam try; > >AG : I'd said it's the opposite. > > >When playing 4S as a slam try (what about 1NT-3S, BTW ?), you can't punt > >4S in this auction. So you might have painted yourself into a corner and > >be compelled to bid only 3, /volens nolens, with a hand worth 3?/. > >No such thing if 4S is conclusive. > > The more common treatment in the US is that if you want to sign off in 4S, you > use a Texas transfer; 1NT-4H-4S must be passed, while 1NT-2H-2S-4S is a mild > slam invitation. (1NT-3S can either be a slam try with five spades, or can be > used for something else.) > > Flight C players, who aren't familiar with this agreement and haven't thought > about the redundancy of playing two sequences with identical meaning, may bid > 1NT-2H-2S-4S with just a game hand. Meanwhile, people like me play 1NT (p) 4H/4S as "I think 4H/4S better be played by my hand than by the 1NT opener". With such an approach, neither 1NT (p) 4S nor 1NT (p) 2H (p) 2S (p) 4S are slam invitations. Thomas Jetzt NEU: Do it youself E-Cards bei Arcor.de! Stellen Sie Ihr eigenes Unikat zusammen und machen Sie dem Empf?nger eine ganz pers?nliche Freude! E-Card Marke Eigenbau: HIER KLICKEN: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.ecard From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 19 07:18:55 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:18:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Datagroups in the early game (Ultra) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: "A specialist is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until finally she knows everything about nothing." Ed Reppert, 15th June 2006, imprimus: [snip] >>Maybe. I do see your point - at least, I do if your point is that >>it is not cost effective to put datalink in swarm ships until the >>datalinked swarm can at least mission kill, if not completely >>destroy, its usual target (presumably the enemy's capital ships) in >>one volley. I don't disagree with that - I don't have enough data >>to agree or disagree - but I do understand the argument, and it >>does make sense to me. >> >>Your argument regarding capital sensors seems to be that they are >>not cost effective in warships (at least at low SL) because they >>take too much room and cost too much for too little practical gain. >>Yes, capital sensors give an earlier warning of approaching enemies >>(greater Long Range detection), but they add nothing to combat >>capabilities against large units (because the added Target Range >>cannot be used by the available weapons) and very little to >>capabilities vs. buoys (0.75 LS Target Range vs. 0.5 LS with Ya). >>The argument makes sense, and unless I'm missing something, I would >>agree that small independent (i.e., not datalinked) scouts are the >>place to put capital sensors. [snip] Ed Reppert, 15th June 2006, secundus: >A message that has nothing to do with bridge. Sorry about that, >folks. Richard Hills, 19th November 2009, tertius: I disagree; I think that Ed's first post has significant relevance to the interpretation of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. People who have not studied Latin may be confused by the jargon of "imprimus", "secundus" and "tertius". Likewise, members of an Appeals Committee in India may be confused by the jargon of the Laws, fail to understand the fundamental principles underpinning the Laws, and thus have their decision derided as farcical. Actually, the jargon of the 2007 Lawbook is much more penetrable than the impenetrable jargon of the 1997 Lawbook. The imprimis problem remaining is that the fundamental principles of the Laws are randomly scattered between Laws 10, 12, 16, 40, 72-75, 81 and 84. Former WBF President Jose Damiani insisted that the WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees should be created after some truly grotesque decisions by international ACs. The WBF CoP consolidates the fundamental principles of Duplicate Bridge into readable and adjacent paragraphs. Perhaps the 2018 Introduction could include similar consolidated jargon-free statements of all of the fundamental principles of Duplicate Bridge. "Caveat": the 2007 Introduction does include one fundamental principle, the requirement to gracefully accept the Director's decisions. Molto bene Ricardus Montanus -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Nov 19 09:45:54 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:45:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" In-Reply-To: <4B046702.1050604@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4AFC5F6D.4030405@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AFCC799.9080703@nhcc.net> <346EB5F3-87CF-4488-A6E8-562B12531C76@btinternet.com> <4AFD5DDD.20501@yahoo.co.uk> <75DC43C9-8DB4-4FB6-A255-C8B087CF6CB2@starpower.net> <4B046702.1050604@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On 18 Nov 2009, at 21:28, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > ]Nigel] > Again, when interpreting the meaning sophisticated Bridge Laws, one > man's "overbid" is another's "underbid" :) Frightening when it strikes > you that the law insists that the director make so many subjective > judgements about the facts of a case, *after* trying to unravel such > woolly laws :( I think there is widespread agreement that this Law is poorly drafted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091119/91996745/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 19 09:51:35 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:51:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. In-Reply-To: References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk><116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos> <4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4B050717.4030501@ulb.ac.be> David Grabiner a ?crit : > "Alain Gottcheiner" writes: > > >> David Grabiner a ?crit : >> > > >>> In Houston non-NABC+ case 8, the auction was 1NT-2H-2S-..3S-4S by a Flight C >>> pair. In Flight A, the slow bid wouldn't demonstrable suggest extra values, >>> because most Flight A players play 4S on this auction as a slam try; >>> >> AG : I'd said it's the opposite. >> > > >> When playing 4S as a slam try (what about 1NT-3S, BTW ?), you can't punt >> 4S in this auction. So you might have painted yourself into a corner and >> be compelled to bid only 3, /volens nolens, with a hand worth 3?/. >> No such thing if 4S is conclusive. >> > > The more common treatment in the US is that if you want to sign off in 4S, you > use a Texas transfer; 1NT-4H-4S must be passed, while 1NT-2H-2S-4S is a mild > slam invitation. (1NT-3S can either be a slam try with five spades, or can be > used for something else.) > > Flight C players, who aren't familiar with this agreement and haven't thought > about the redundancy of playing two sequences with identical meaning, may bid > 1NT-2H-2S-4S with just a game hand. > That's okay, but this doens't change anything to my argument : onceyou bid 2H, you can't follow by stretching to 4S (e.g. according to opponents' reactions) , so the tempo suggests you just remembered that. From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Nov 19 10:58:43 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:58:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Datagroups in the early game (Ultra) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2da24b8e0911190158j6b1864eelaf071d06e13b6413@mail.gmail.com> This looks suspiciously like an old game called Starfire which was a simplified version of Star Fleet Battles SFB... THAT was one insane rule book... On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:18 AM, wrote: > > >>Maybe. I do see your point - at least, I do if your point is that > >>it is not cost effective to put datalink in swarm ships until the > >>datalinked swarm can at least mission kill, if not completely > >>destroy, its usual target (presumably the enemy's capital ships) in > >>one volley. I don't disagree with that - I don't have enough data > >>to agree or disagree - but I do understand the argument, and it > >>does make sense to me. > >> > >>Your argument regarding capital sensors seems to be that they are > >>not cost effective in warships (at least at low SL) because they > >>take too much room and cost too much for too little practical gain. > >>Yes, capital sensors give an earlier warning of approaching enemies > >>(greater Long Range detection), but they add nothing to combat > >>capabilities against large units (because the added Target Range > >>cannot be used by the available weapons) and very little to > >>capabilities vs. buoys (0.75 LS Target Range vs. 0.5 LS with Ya). > >>The argument makes sense, and unless I'm missing something, I would > >>agree that small independent (i.e., not datalinked) scouts are the > >>place to put capital sensors. > > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091119/069022b9/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 19 11:03:12 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:03:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" References: <4AFC5F6D.4030405@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AFCC799.9080703@nhcc.net><346EB5F3-87CF-4488-A6E8-562B12531C76@btinternet.com><4AFD5DDD.20501@yahoo.co.uk> <75DC43C9-8DB4-4FB6-A255-C8B087CF6CB2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <130043D8B067447FACF67E8F0921B471@Mildred> Grattan Endicott " The WBF minute and the EBU's revised policy in response to it (as written by Max Bavin) can be found in Appendix A of the L&E minutes at http://www.ebu.co.uk/ publications/ Minutes%20and%20Reports/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20 Committee/ 2009/19%20may.pdf > one should bear in mind that Max Bavin is the WBF CTD and normally his interpretations may be expected to conform to WBF practice. I have received also a report of a discussion on another forum which states: < He made some comments about the EBU, not very complimentary to be honest, along the lines of 'incompetent', and aspects of the Orange Book were 'drivel' and 'garbage' and so on, and when something was quoted from David Stevenson from another forum, ****'s reply was that David, unlike ****, had not "studied the laws in detail and analysed them extremely carefully." > This report leads me to reflect that we should all seek to avoid the semblance of bumptiousness and self-conceit. ['****' masks a name one would recognize.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 19 15:26:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:26:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. In-Reply-To: References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk><116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos> <4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <138C823E-C868-4BFB-9DF7-064131D0905A@starpower.net> [off topic] On Nov 18, 2009, at 8:22 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > The more common treatment in the US is that if you want to sign off > in 4S, you > use a Texas transfer; 1NT-4H-4S must be passed, while 1NT-2H-2S-4S > is a mild > slam invitation. (1NT-3S can either be a slam try with five > spades, or can be > used for something else.) > > Flight C players, who aren't familiar with this agreement and > haven't thought > about the redundancy of playing two sequences with identical > meaning, may bid > 1NT-2H-2S-4S with just a game hand. In my preferred strong-NT methods, I play that 1NT-4S shows a desire to declare 4S, while 1NT-2H-2S-4S shows a desire for partner to declare 4S. These are not "identical meaning[s]", and I do not find having both of them in my arsenal redundant. OTC, I find it much more useful than distinguishing an ill-defined "mild slam invitation" from the myriad of better-defined slam-invitational sequences one has available over a strong NT. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 19 18:30:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:30:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Encrypted signals Message-ID: <6063708B9F40438CA1BB06AA521FAEB4@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <6063708B9F40438CA1BB06AA521FAEB4@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B058A47.7060700@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan Endicott] ******************************** Where there's a will ........ meet the family. "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' +=+ Here is a snippet from my post-box. The response is not from me but from an authoritative source. I pass it on as a matter of interest. ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Question asked: The WBF Systems Policy says that encrypted signals are not allowed. However, I can see some players in world championships still adopt, for example, Slavinsky leads (Low = even without honour or odd with honour), and Vinje's count (trump signal, showing odd-even parity of the distribution of 4 suits). Do you know the reason why they are still allowed? Answer supplied: Neither Slavinsky nor Vinje fit into the category of encrypted signals These rely on some additional key, access to which is only available to the user. For example, declarer ruffs the opening lead so both defenders know precisely how many cards the other holds in the suit. So, whenever this happens (opening lead being ruffed) they agree to play that all signals are normal if the player making it held an even number of cards in the suit which has been ruffed, but are upside-down if the player making it held an odd number of cards in the suit which has been ruffed. An example of encrypted bidding would be (say) a 3S response to 1NT is a natural slam try with precisely 2 of the top 3 honours in spades. Opener must bid 3NT if he does not hold the missing honour, or cue-bid if he does have it. However, the pair decide to encrypt the cue-bidding by playing normal cue-bids if the opener holds the Ace of trumps, but transfer cue-bids if he holds the K/Q of trumps. Slavinsky and Vinje don't contain this additional outside element - exactly the same information is available to both sides. It is true that there will be situations where the defenders can work out exactly what is going on before declarer can, but equally there will be situations where it is declarer who can work it out first (e.g. with Slavinsky, declarer might know that the leader doesn't hold an honour because declarer himself holds all the unseen honours, whereas the other defender won't know this). These are not encrypted methods within the meaning of the term. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Nigel] Excellent answer, clarifying the law as it stands. Although, it would be simpler and better if encrypted signals and so on were permitted. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Nov 19 21:43:34 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:43:34 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk><116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos><4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be> <138C823E-C868-4BFB-9DF7-064131D0905A@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: > > In my preferred strong-NT methods, I play that 1NT-4S shows a > desire > to declare 4S, while 1NT-2H-2S-4S shows a desire for partner to > declare 4S. I hope the immediate 4S bid is played with all partners, not just weak ones. :-)) Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 19 22:43:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:43:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL "Ruling the Game" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <130043D8B067447FACF67E8F0921B471@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott quoting a report from someone else: [snip] > I have received also a report of a discussion on >another forum which states: > < He Richard Hills: In the context of the title of this thread, I am making a wild or gambling guess that "he" is an ACBL identity. Grattan Endicott quoting a report from someone else: >made some comments about the EBU, not very complimentary >to be honest, along the lines of 'incompetent', St Matthew chapter 7, verse 3: "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is thine own eye?" Grattan Endicott quoting a report from someone else: >and aspects of the Orange Book were 'drivel' and 'garbage' >and so on, Richard Hills: True. But providing guidance to players and Directors via a slightly flawed Orange Book is better than not providing any guidance at all. It was perhaps the absence of an ACBL version of the Orange Book which saw an ACBL Director and also an ACBL Appeals Committee completely ignore an ACBL regulation and also completely ignore Law 40B5: "When a side is damaged by an opponent's use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty." Grattan Endicott quoting a report from someone else: >and when something was quoted from David Stevenson from >another forum, ****'s reply was that David, unlike ****, >had not "studied the laws in detail and analysed them >extremely carefully." > Richard Hills: The problem, rather, is that David Stevenson analysed Law 90 too carefully, and carefully noted that the Law 90 word "offence" is seven letters long, but the more generally used word "infraction" is nine letters long, and thus David came to the conclusion that the two words had different meanings. Ergo, the Stevensonian Museum argued that the TD could therefore apply a Law 90 PP to a non-offending player because the TD did not like the colour of the non-offending player's underpants. Grattan Endicott personal conclusion: >This report leads me to reflect that we should all seek to >avoid the semblance of bumptiousness and self-conceit. >['****' masks a name one would recognize.] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Francis Bacon (1561-1626): "Words are the token current and accepted for conceits, as moneys are for values." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Nov 20 00:09:10 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:09:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] "Literal interpretation" In-Reply-To: <72A8DF344613457A87D03D2A80EF84C8@Mildred> References: <72A8DF344613457A87D03D2A80EF84C8@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B05D016.9040508@yahoo.co.uk> [Nigel] I prefer Burn's literal interpretation of rules because the "judgement" interpretation seems over-dependent on players' and directors' subjective evaluation. This produces inconsistent rulings. A perception of unfairness results". [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Now a literal interpretation of: "Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener's Multi 2D." can hardly be said to demand that the 2D shall not be passed ever factually. Such a regulation would use more definite language, such as "must not" or "shall not". it would not say "is expected to". This delicate language does not close the door. [Nige2] Grattan's interpretation bathes the whole Orange Book in a friendly green light :) [2009 EBU ORANGE BOOK, *emphasis* mine] 1 C 1 Players entering events *are expected to* submit themselves to the published regulations. 1 C 2 Players *are expected to comply with regulations* even though they may doubt the legality of the regulations (under the Laws of bridge). Players seeking to challenge regulations should do so by approaching the Laws and Ethics Committee via correspondence, rather than (say) via the appeals process. See 1 B for how to contact the Committee. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 20 09:44:38 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:44:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. In-Reply-To: References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk><116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos><4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be> <138C823E-C868-4BFB-9DF7-064131D0905A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4B0656F6.1050009@skynet.be> Marvin L French wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> In my preferred strong-NT methods, I play that 1NT-4S shows a >> desire >> to declare 4S, while 1NT-2H-2S-4S shows a desire for partner to >> declare 4S. > > I hope the immediate 4S bid is played with all partners, not just > weak ones. :-)) > I notice the smiley, but I don't see why this remark is needed. Surely both players can play the same system, but use different criteria about what is the best hand to place the contract in? Surely the reasoning behind selecting who better to play the contract depends not only on the possesion of AQ's, singleton kings (better kept hidden), but also on who is on play, and who on lead? Why should such considerations not be allowed? Marv? Herman. > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 20 10:51:35 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:51:35 -0000 Subject: [BLML] "Literal interpretation" References: <72A8DF344613457A87D03D2A80EF84C8@Mildred> <4B05D016.9040508@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <63CC81BDB8AB48C88391E77560092604@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] "Literal interpretation" > [Nigel] > I prefer Burn's literal interpretation of rules because the "judgement" > interpretation seems over-dependent on players' and directors' > subjective evaluation. This produces inconsistent rulings. A perception > of unfairness results". > > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Now a literal interpretation of: "Responder is expected to explore > game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger > options of opener's Multi 2D." can hardly be said to demand that the 2D > shall not be passed ever factually. Such a regulation would use more > definite language, such as "must not" or "shall not". it would not say > "is expected to". This delicate language does not close the door. > > [Nige2] > Grattan's interpretation bathes the whole Orange Book in a friendly > green light :) > > [2009 EBU ORANGE BOOK, *emphasis* mine] > 1 C 1 Players entering events *are expected to* submit themselves to the > published regulations. > 1 C 2 Players *are expected to comply with regulations* even though they > may doubt the legality of the regulations (under the Laws of bridge). > Players seeking to challenge regulations should do so by approaching the > Laws and Ethics Committee via correspondence, rather than (say) via the > appeals process. See 1 B for how to contact the Committee. > +=+ The language is soft, user friendly. It acknowledges that it will not always happen and is rather like 'should'. There may be retribution for failure, of course, but this is not put 'up front' aggressively. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 20 10:55:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:55:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk><116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos><4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be> <138C823E-C868-4BFB-9DF7-064131D0905A@starpower.net> <4B0656F6.1050009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3CC2E73A3316451490066C52CF70C160@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical alternative. > Eric Landau wrote: > In my preferred strong-NT methods, I play that 1NT-4S shows > a desire to declare 4S, while 1NT-2H-2S-4S shows a desire > for partner to declare 4S. > +=+ It looks as though Eric not only desires it but indeed also achieves it. ~ G ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 20 20:32:18 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:32:18 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk><116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos><4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be> <138C823E-C868-4BFB-9DF7-064131D0905A@starpower.net> <4B0656F6.1050009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <234CF1CA4E6645F386C170D8CF99768F@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >> I hope the immediate 4S bid is played with all partners, not just >> weak ones. :-)) >> > > I notice the smiley, but I don't see why this remark is needed. > Surely both players can play the same system, but use different > criteria > about what is the best hand to place the contract in? > Surely the reasoning behind selecting who better to play the > contract > depends not only on the possesion of AQ's, singleton kings (better > kept > hidden), but also on who is on play, and who on lead? > Why should such considerations not be allowed? > Marv? > I guess I didn't make my meaning clear. If a pro always bids 4S with a weak client, regardless of outside tenaces, but requires the client to always transfer, then the two are not playing the same system, which isn't legal, at least not in ACBL-land.. Law 40B2(a) [The RA] may vary the the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made. This is a little vague, as a pro could say that partner John or Jane may bid 4S if he/she wishes and that he may use Texas Transfers if he wishes. After all, both have the same meaning.The ACBL wisely made clear that this won't wash: Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors: Law 40B2(a) Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card. ["same" is otiose, since the two convention cards must be identical] If Texas Transfers are shown on the cc and a pro *never* uses TT for spades, while partner John or Jane *always* does, they are not playing the same system. Other examples I have witnessed at NABCs include pros who forbid partner to open 1NT (while they routinely open 1NT with 14-18, despite the 15-17 on the cc) and pros who never make a takeout double, preferring to overcall with a 4-4-4-1 hand. When I tell a TD about such things, he/she lectures me about "judgment." There is no legal judgment involved, as they never vary. In the old days we used to joke that for Mixed Pairs the female must never bid notrump and must wear a very low-cut gown. Sad to say, Mixed pairs are a rarity now, as are gowns, and the joke is not PC. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Nov 20 22:34:04 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. In-Reply-To: <234CF1CA4E6645F386C170D8CF99768F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk> <116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos> <4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be> <138C823E-C868-4BFB-9DF7-064131D0905A@starpower.net> <4B0656F6.1050009@skynet.be> <234CF1CA4E6645F386C170D8CF99768F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:32:18 -0500, Marvin L French wrote: > > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>> >>> I hope the immediate 4S bid is played with all partners, not just >>> weak ones. :-)) >>> >> >> I notice the smiley, but I don't see why this remark is needed. >> Surely both players can play the same system, but use different >> criteria >> about what is the best hand to place the contract in? >> Surely the reasoning behind selecting who better to play the >> contract >> depends not only on the possesion of AQ's, singleton kings (better >> kept >> hidden), but also on who is on play, and who on lead? >> Why should such considerations not be allowed? >> Marv? >> > I guess I didn't make my meaning clear. If a pro always bids 4S with > a weak client, regardless of outside tenaces, but requires the > client to always transfer, then the two are not playing the same > system, which isn't legal, at least not in ACBL-land.. > > Law 40B2(a) > > [The RA] may vary the the general requirement that the meaning of a > call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the > partnership by whom it is made. > > This is a little vague, as a pro could say that partner John or Jane > may bid 4S if he/she wishes and that he may use Texas Transfers if > he wishes. After all, both have the same meaning.The ACBL wisely > made clear that this won't wash: > > Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors: > > Law 40B2(a) Both members of a partnership must employ the same > system that appears on the convention card. ["same" is otiose, > since the two convention cards must be identical] > > If Texas Transfers are shown on the cc and a pro *never* uses TT for > spades, while partner John or Jane *always* does, they are not > playing the same system. I believe, to my disappointment, that it does not make any difference what people play. The rules focus solely on agreements. My extreme example is both players can open 1NT with 14-17 while the card says 15-17. But real life examples are quite common. The player who says he needs 8 HCP to overcall and overcalls with a ratty 7. The player who says he opens 2NT with 20-21 and opens with an ordinary 19 HCP. THe players who play 1NT shows a balanced hand and have holes in their system that entice them to open 1NT with a singleton. You supply further examples below. > > Other examples I have witnessed at NABCs include pros who forbid > partner to open 1NT (while they routinely open 1NT with 14-18, > despite the 15-17 on the cc) and pros who never make a takeout > double, preferring to overcall with a 4-4-4-1 hand. When I tell a TD > about such things, he/she lectures me about "judgment." There is no > legal judgment involved, as they never vary. > > In the old days we used to joke that for Mixed Pairs the female must > never bid notrump and must wear a very low-cut gown. Sad to say, > Mixed pairs are a rarity now, as are gowns, and the joke is not PC. > > 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 21 02:27:46 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:27:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative. References: <4B02D95D.5010505@yahoo.co.uk><116A438EDFF9460E8A8DCE94745532B7@erdos><4B03B3CB.4030801@ulb.ac.be><138C823E-C868-4BFB-9DF7-064131D0905A@starpower.net><4B0656F6.1050009@skynet.be><234CF1CA4E6645F386C170D8CF99768F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: From: "Robert Frick" Marv wrote: >> >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >>>> >>>> I hope the immediate 4S bid is played with all partners, not >>>> just >>>> weak ones. :-)) >>>> >>> >>> I notice the smiley, but I don't see why this remark is needed. >>> Surely both players can play the same system, but use different >>> criteria >>> about what is the best hand to place the contract in? >>> Surely the reasoning behind selecting who better to play the >>> contract >>> depends not only on the possesion of AQ's, singleton kings >>> (better >>> kept >>> hidden), but also on who is on play, and who on lead? >>> Why should such considerations not be allowed? >>> Marv? >>> >> I guess I didn't make my meaning clear. If a pro always bids 4S >> with >> a weak client, regardless of outside tenaces, but requires the >> client to always transfer, then the two are not playing the same >> system, which isn't legal, at least not in ACBL-land.. >> >> Law 40B2(a) >> >> [The RA] may vary the the general requirement that the meaning of >> a >> call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the >> partnership by whom it is made. >> >> This is a little vague, as a pro could say that partner John or >> Jane >> may bid 4S if he/she wishes and that he may use Texas Transfers >> if >> he wishes. After all, both have the same meaning.The ACBL wisely >> made clear that this won't wash: >> >> Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors: >> >> Law 40B2(a) Both members of a partnership must employ the same >> system that appears on the convention card. ["same" is otiose, >> since the two convention cards must be identical] >> >> If Texas Transfers are shown on the cc and a pro *never* uses TT >> for >> spades, while partner John or Jane *always* does, they are not >> playing the same system. > > I believe, to my disappointment, that it does not make any > difference what > people play. The rules focus solely on agreements. > > My extreme example is both players can open 1NT with 14-17 while > the card > says 15-17. That's bad, if done regularly and partner caters to 14. Otherwise, not so bad. I have 15+ to 18+ on my convention card, but actually use the more accurate honor count (HC) of 3-1/2+ to 4+, which goes outside that range occasionally. I open 1NT with AQx AJ9 Axxx xxx, a bare 15 but 3-1/2+ HC. Also with AKx Kxx Kxxx KQJ a full 19 HCP but only 4+ HC. The ACBL forces me to disclose the HCP for our opening 1NT bid on the convention card even though I don't use HCP. Hardly seems fair. Disclosing the HC range (which I got from Lew Mathe) wouldn't do much good because hardly anyone knows honor count. Putting 15-19 on my cc isn't fair to the opponents because 15 and 19 are so rare. Partners assume 16-18 HCP for their bidding decisions and don't know my evaluation criteria, so opponents know as much as partner does. I think I'm okay. > But real life examples are quite common. The player who says he > needs 8 > HCP to overcall and overcalls with a ratty 7. The player who says > he opens > 2NT with 20-21 and opens with an ordinary 19 HCP. THe players who > play 1NT > shows a balanced hand and have holes in their system that entice > them to > open 1NT with a singleton. > Those aren't so bad, unless they are done so regularly that the partner allows for them. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From cibor at poczta.fm Sat Nov 21 20:03:10 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:03:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation Message-ID: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> Hi all, You hold: A1085 K10 J62 J432 Matchpoints, Love All. You pass as dealer and your partner opens 1D in third seat. Righty overcalls 1S and you respond 1NT. Your partner goes into a tank and after significant hesitation emerges with a 2D rebid. What action, if any, does the hesitation suggest? What calls become more attractive after the hesitation? Passing? Raising? Converting to NT? None at all? In other words if you had no reservations about drawing inferences from your partner's hesitation what would you bid? Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091121/1caa6f8f/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 21 22:59:35 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:59:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:03:10 -0500, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi all, > > You hold: > > A1085 > K10 > J62 > J432 > > > Matchpoints, Love All. > > You pass as dealer and your partner opens 1D > in third seat. Righty overcalls 1S and you respond 1NT. > Your partner goes into a tank and after significant > hesitation emerges with a 2D rebid. > > What action, if any, does the hesitation suggest? > What calls become more attractive after the hesitation? > Passing? Raising? Converting to NT? > None at all? > > In other words if you had no reservations about > drawing inferences from your partner's hesitation > what would you bid? > > Best regards, > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland Partner could have been thinking of passing 1NT. Partner could have been thinking of making a stronger bid. I think 3D caters best to either possibility. The hesistation suggests at least that partner isn't sure 2D is the best contract. So the hesitation suggests bidding on. From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 22 01:58:42 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:58:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <000f01ca6b0e$ef9e17b0$ceda4710$@no> On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski Hi all, ? You hold: ? A1085 K10 J62 J432 ? ? Matchpoints, Love All. ? You pass as dealer and your partner opens 1D in third seat. Righty overcalls 1S and you respond 1NT. Your partner goes into a tank and after significant hesitation emerges with a 2D rebid. ? What action, if any, does the hesitation suggest? What calls become more attractive after the hesitation? Passing? Raising? Converting to NT? None at all? ? In other words if you had no reservations about drawing inferences from your partner's hesitation what would you bid? ? My comments: In my world 2D means that he has minimum for his opening bid and is not comfortable with playing in 1NT. If anything, the BIT must indicate that he has a stronger than minimum opening hand. I have no idea what particular calls from me the BIT might suggest and I would anyway pass with or without his BIT. Regards Sven From jrhind at therock.bm Sun Nov 22 02:28:19 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:28:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A 2D bid in tempo would suggest a minimum opener, whereas the BIT tends to suggest to me that partner has other alternatives. I would pass. Jack On 11/21/09 5:59 PM, "Robert Frick" wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:03:10 -0500, Konrad Ciborowski > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> You hold: >> >> A1085 >> K10 >> J62 >> J432 >> >> >> Matchpoints, Love All. >> >> You pass as dealer and your partner opens 1D >> in third seat. Righty overcalls 1S and you respond 1NT. >> Your partner goes into a tank and after significant >> hesitation emerges with a 2D rebid. >> >> What action, if any, does the hesitation suggest? >> What calls become more attractive after the hesitation? >> Passing? Raising? Converting to NT? >> None at all? >> >> In other words if you had no reservations about >> drawing inferences from your partner's hesitation >> what would you bid? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Konrad Ciborowski >> Krak?w, Poland > > Partner could have been thinking of passing 1NT. Partner could have been > thinking of making a stronger bid. I think 3D caters best to either > possibility. > > The hesistation suggests at least that partner isn't sure 2D is the best > contract. So the hesitation suggests bidding on. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 22 03:31:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:31:29 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation A 2D bid in tempo would suggest a minimum opener, whereas the BIT tends to suggest to me that partner has other alternatives. I would pass. Jack On 11/21/09 5:59 PM, "Robert Frick" wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:03:10 -0500, Konrad Ciborowski > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> You hold: >> >> A1085 >> K10 >> J62 >> J432 >> >> >> Matchpoints, Love All. >> >> You pass as dealer and your partner opens 1D >> in third seat. Righty overcalls 1S and you respond 1NT. >> Your partner goes into a tank and after significant >> hesitation emerges with a 2D rebid. >> >> What action, if any, does the hesitation suggest? >> What calls become more attractive after the hesitation? >> Passing? Raising? Converting to NT? >> None at all? >> >> In other words if you had no reservations about >> drawing inferences from your partner's hesitation >> what would you bid? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Konrad Ciborowski >> Krak?w, Poland > > Partner could have been thinking of passing 1NT. Partner > could have been thinking of making a stronger bid. I think 3D > caters best to either possibility. > > The hesistation suggests at least that partner isn't sure 2D is > the best contract. So the hesitation suggests bidding on. > +=+ If played as a pre-emptive bid a raise to 3D is a logical alternative to Pass. Otherwise no alternative to Pass. I do not see that the hesitation suggests one over the other unless it is that any concealed strength reduces chances that opponents will compete, in which case perhaps the UI tends to dissuade the player from raising pre-emptively. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 22 17:59:58 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:59:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft Message-ID: <694eadd40911220859i2ac702a6x56d838e61ff48c2a@mail.gmail.com> With Grattan's permission I have posted a copy of the XA draft of the Laws. This complete rewrite of the laws has been mentioned on BLML but never posted. It was eventually abandoned in favor of a version that evolved incrementally from the 1997 Laws. ? http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/xa_draft.html This consists of scanned PDFs. If anyway can use OCR to produce a text version I'd be delighted to post that as well. Also, please let me know if you notice any missing pages. It's always possible that two stuck together during the scanning. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Nov 22 22:54:38 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:54:38 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <004801ca6bbe$64aedc60$2401a8c0@p41600> This seems so trivial that I am immmediately suspicious. Is pard ensuring that I must pass having opened extremely light/psyched. Pass anyway let the td sort that scenario out. No other choice whatsoever. lnb ********************** Another couple of millimetres, and that would have been inch-perfect. ********************** A1085 K10 J62 J432 Matchpoints, Love All. You pass as dealer and your partner opens 1D in third seat. Righty overcalls 1S and you respond 1NT. Your partner goes into a tank and after significant hesitation emerges with a 2D rebid. What action, if any, does the hesitation suggest? What calls become more attractive after the hesitation? Passing? Raising? Converting to NT? None at all? In other words if you had no reservations about drawing inferences from your partner's hesitation what would you bid? Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091122/0f4f5f5c/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Nov 23 00:09:49 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:09:49 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: On 21 Nov 2009, at 19:03, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi all, > > You hold: > > A1085 > K10 > J62 > J432 > > > Matchpoints, Love All. > > You pass as dealer and your partner opens 1D > in third seat. Righty overcalls 1S and you respond 1NT. > Your partner goes into a tank and after significant > hesitation emerges with a 2D rebid. > > What action, if any, does the hesitation suggest? > What calls become more attractive after the hesitation? > Passing? Raising? Converting to NT? > None at all? Two possibilities come to mind - a hand just short of a 2H reverse, or a hand just short of a 3D rebid - but since no possibility occurs to me for my rebid other than to pass, I don't anticipate a problem. I do not think that anyone who bid on with this hand after partner had hesitated would be fulfilling their L73C obligations. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091122/8829c246/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 23 07:34:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:34:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40911220859i2ac702a6x56d838e61ff48c2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Gianni Versace (1949-1997), Italian designer: "I like to dress egos. If you haven't got an ego today, you can forget it." Grattan Endicott, open letter to Adam Wildavsky, 26th October 2009: [snip] >When we restarted I resisted rejection of the direction the XPM / XA >drafts were going in 1997 Laws 40, 80, 81, and in these I obtained >some at least of the progress I desired. Certain of my colleagues >will have felt my ego is pretty big, and no doubt it is, but I am >not unique in this. [snip] Draft XA Law 4C: "A player who is asked lawfully by an opponent to explain a call or play shall fully disclose the partnership understanding and any special information that is available to him arising from the methods of the partnership. If no partnership understanding is involved a player is not obliged to speak as to anything that he may infer from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players. (See Law 21)" Actual 2007 Law 40B6(a): "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Richard Hills: Note that the draft XA Law 4C phrase "shall fully disclose" was eventually watered down to the actual 2007 Law 40B6(a) phrase "shall disclose"; perhaps due to the belief that "full disclosure" is often impractical (what is needed at the table is "good faith disclosure"). The draft XA Law 4C phrase "If no partnership understanding is involved" was deleted from the actual 2007 Law 40B6(a); perhaps because the 4C phrase was deemed to be implicit in the 40B6(a) conjunction "but"; or perhaps because second thoughts caused the Drafting Committee to want to minimise any complaint from a Secretary Bird who knew exactly what was going on, but the Secretary Bird had not been formally told what was going on. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 23 12:06:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:06:50 -0000 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <98FEB46631464B73B123F7C9B4DD4B25@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 6:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] XA Draft [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> > Richard Hills: > Note that the draft XA Law 4C phrase "shall fully disclose" was eventually watered down to the actual 2007 Law 40B6(a) phrase "shall disclose"; perhaps due to the belief that "full disclosure" is often impractical (what is needed at the table is "good faith disclosure"). > +=+ A safety net is provided in Law 40B6(b).+=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 23 15:13:41 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:13:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Intriguing L36A vs L41C situation Message-ID: <000601ca6c47$293de340$7bb9a9c0$@no> An intriguing question involving mainly L36A and L41C has come up, and although apparently rather hypothetical I don't think it can be discarded as irrelevant. The purified situation is (with alternatives): An inadmissible double during the auction is not discovered until after start of the play period. What options are available to the Director when he shall make his ruling? The alternatives to be considered are: On the auction:: A-1): The double is followed immediately by three passes. A-2): The double is followed by a redouble and then three passes. A-3): The double is followed by at least another bid before the auction is closed by three passes. On the discovery of the irregularity: D-1): The irregularity is discovered immediately after the opening lead has been faced. D-2): The irregularity is discovered later during the play but before play is completed D-3): The irregularity is discovered after play is completed (but before the correction period expires). Since Law 41C specifies that "the play period begins irrevocably" the Director seems unable to apply Law 36A and restart the auction from the cancelled inadmissible double. I am interested in (authoritative) comments. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 23 15:30:19 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:30:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4730FEDE-83EB-474B-9009-63539357B986@starpower.net> On Nov 21, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > You hold: > > A1085 > K10 > J62 > J432 > > Matchpoints, Love All. > > You pass as dealer and your partner opens 1D > in third seat. Righty overcalls 1S and you respond 1NT. > Your partner goes into a tank and after significant > hesitation emerges with a 2D rebid. > > What action, if any, does the hesitation suggest? > What calls become more attractive after the hesitation? > Passing? Raising? Converting to NT? > None at all? The hesitation suggests that partner doesn't have a "book" 2D rebid, so he may have been hoping to "get by" this round. A common problem in his position, for instance, would be a choice between a high-card- heavy 2D or 3D with less-than-adequate diamonds. I'd say that, whatever is problem is, the hesitation makes bidding more attractive relative to passing, since that may give him a chance to solve it. This is not an uncommon position to be in after partner huddles; indeed, it is common enough to have given rise to the popular canard that when partner huddles you're ethically obligated to pass. > In other words if you had no reservations about > drawing inferences from your partner's hesitation > what would you bid? I'd still pass. I have a typical hand for my actions so far, and no reason to disturb a normal 2D bid. Indeed, if there were UI suggesting a pass, I'd allow it on the basis of "no LA". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 23 17:04:43 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:04:43 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Intriguing L36A vs L41C situation In-Reply-To: <000601ca6c47$293de340$7bb9a9c0$@no> References: <000601ca6c47$293de340$7bb9a9c0$@no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 08:13 To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] Intriguing L36A vs L41C situation > An intriguing question involving mainly L36A and L41C has come up, and > although apparently rather hypothetical I don't think it can be discarded > as > irrelevant. > > The purified situation is (with alternatives): > > An inadmissible double during the auction is not discovered until after > start of the play period. > > What options are available to the Director when he shall make his ruling? > > The alternatives to be considered are: > > On the auction:: > A-1): The double is followed immediately by three passes. > A-2): The double is followed by a redouble and then three passes. > A-3): The double is followed by at least another bid before the auction is > closed by three passes. > On the discovery of the irregularity: > D-1): The irregularity is discovered immediately after the opening lead > has > been faced. > D-2): The irregularity is discovered later during the play but before play > is completed > D-3): The irregularity is discovered after play is completed (but before > the > correction period expires). > > Since Law 41C specifies that "the play period begins irrevocably" the > Director seems unable to apply Law 36A and restart the auction from the > cancelled inadmissible double. > > I am interested in (authoritative) comments. > > Regards Sven It is daft to define inadmissible calls as the law does. If players condone illegal calls without penalty what about it is so really horrible? But what really is horrible is what the law does do about it. Notably, if the law requires forever that something is to be done, but it is undesirable to allow for such a lengthy period of time, there are various terms that might be used to describe that state of affairs. regards roger pewick From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 23 21:15:58 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:15:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Intriguing L36A vs L41C situation In-Reply-To: <000601ca6c47$293de340$7bb9a9c0$@no> References: <000601ca6c47$293de340$7bb9a9c0$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:13:41 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > An intriguing question involving mainly L36A and L41C has come up, and > although apparently rather hypothetical I don't think it can be > discarded as > irrelevant. > > The purified situation is (with alternatives): > > An inadmissible double during the auction is not discovered until after > start of the play period. > > What options are available to the Director when he shall make his ruling? > > The alternatives to be considered are: > > On the auction:: > A-1): The double is followed immediately by three passes. > A-2): The double is followed by a redouble and then three passes. > A-3): The double is followed by at least another bid before the auction > is > closed by three passes. > On the discovery of the irregularity: > D-1): The irregularity is discovered immediately after the opening lead > has > been faced. > D-2): The irregularity is discovered later during the play but before > play > is completed > D-3): The irregularity is discovered after play is completed (but before > the > correction period expires). > > Since Law 41C specifies that "the play period begins irrevocably" the > Director seems unable to apply Law 36A and restart the auction from the > cancelled inadmissible double. > > I am interested in (authoritative) comments. I hope you get them. You find a nice contradiction. Law 36 is like 17E2 is that a player can take advantage of not noticing an irregularity. I actually had both opponents double me once. If I wanted to run but didn't know where, it makes sense to play out the hand and find out what everyone has before deciding. I think the opps will notice an illegal double during the auction, but if not, I can wait to point it out until the auction is over. That might help me decide what to do. And in any case all of their subsequent bids will become UI to them. From wrgptfan at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 21:24:38 2009 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:24:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <000f01ca6b0e$ef9e17b0$ceda4710$@no> References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> <000f01ca6b0e$ef9e17b0$ceda4710$@no> Message-ID: <9ACB3ACA-BF56-44D0-8072-5BF2329BECFB@gmail.com> On Nov 21, 2009, at 19:58, "Sven Pran" wrote: > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > > Hi all, > > You hold: > > A1085 > K10 > J62 > J432 > > > Matchpoints, Love All. > > You pass as dealer and your partner opens 1D > in third seat. Righty overcalls 1S and you respond 1NT. > Your partner goes into a tank and after significant > hesitation emerges with a 2D rebid. > > What action, if any, does the hesitation suggest? > What calls become more attractive after the hesitation? > Passing? Raising? Converting to NT? > None at all? > > In other words if you had no reservations about > drawing inferences from your partner's hesitation > what would you bid? > > > My comments: > > In my world 2D means that he has minimum for his opening bid and is > not > comfortable with playing in 1NT. > If anything, the BIT must indicate that he has a stronger than minimum > opening hand. I have no idea what particular calls from me the BIT > might > suggest and I would anyway pass with or without his BIT. > > Regards Sven > Before they find their presumed heart fit, I would raise to 3D with or without the hesitation. My hand is now huge opposite a 2D rebid (based on my 1NT bid). > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 23 22:46:56 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:46:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Intriguing L36A vs L41C situation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601ca6c47$293de340$7bb9a9c0$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >An inadmissible double during the auction is not discovered until >after start of the play period. > >What options are available to the Director when he shall make his >ruling? > >The alternatives to be considered are: > >On the auction: [snip] >A-2): The double is followed by a redouble and then three passes. Richard Hills: For example -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 4S Pass X XX Pass Pass Pass Sven Pran: [snip] >D-3): The irregularity is discovered after play is completed (but >before the correction period expires). > >Since Law 41C specifies that "the play period begins irrevocably" >the Director seems unable to apply Law 36A and restart the auction >from the cancelled inadmissible double. > >I am interested in (authoritative) comments. Richard Hills: I am not an authority, since I am neither a member of the World nor the South Pacific Laws Committees. But it seems to me that Law 41C does not apply; the auction has frozen at the point of East's inadmissible double, and the subsequent so-called play period was merely 52 cards exposed during the actual auction period. So the Director should apply Law 24C (Two or More Cards Exposed): "If two or more cards are so exposed offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side)." Richard Hills: And in this particular case Law 23 would apply, since East "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity" that East's inadmissible double "could well damage" inattentive opponents by causing them to create 26 penalty cards. An easy game is bridge. An easy game is directing. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Nov 23 23:39:25 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:39:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4B0B0F1D.4030606@yahoo.co.uk> [Konrad Ciborowski] Matchpoints, Love All. You hold: A1085 K10 J62 J432 _P (_P) 1D (1S) 1N (_P) ..2D (_P) What action, if any, does the hesitation suggest? What calls become more attractive after the hesitation? Passing? Raising? Converting to NT? None at all? In other words if you had no reservations about drawing inferences from your partner's hesitation what would you bid? [Nige1] (a) Without the hesitation, _P = 10, 2N = 6, 3D = 4 (b) Love All at pairs, just winning the auction in 1N will usually produce a good result. So there is no need to give opponents a second bite at the cherry unless you have extra values; but this inference is available *with or without* the hesitation. So, opposite a stranger, I don't see how the hesitation makes any particular course of action more attractive. (c) What the hesitation suggests depends on your methods. For example, if 1D could be 3 cards, then partner might correct with any 5+ diamonds. (d) Of course, a player in an experienced partnership, will usually *know* what partner's hesitation means, but the law does not cater for that contingency. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 24 00:07:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:07:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Has he station? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B0B0F1D.4030606@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Charles Dickens (1812-1870): O let us love our occupations, Bless the squire and his relations, Live upon our daily rations, And always know our proper stations. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >(d) Of course, a player in an experienced partnership, >will usually *know* what partner's hesitation means, Richard Hills: Agree. Nigel Guthrie: >but the law does not cater for that contingency. Richard Hills: Disagree. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 24 01:25:17 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:25:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <234CF1CA4E6645F386C170D8CF99768F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Marv French: >.....If Texas Transfers are shown on the cc and a pro *never* uses >TT for spades, while partner John or Jane *always* does, they are >not playing the same system. Richard Hills: Worse than that, they are playing what a former senior member of the ABF defined as a "private system". In what was an unpublicised notorious case some years ago, a sponsor and his professional partner were discovered by the ABF to be using one-way transfers. The punishment fitted the crime; the professional's income was severely reduced when the ABF imposed a ban on that pro partnering that sponsor in future ABF events. (I believe that the sponsor is now achieving some success playing with a team of different pros on the European circuit.) Marv French: >Other examples I have witnessed at NABCs include pros who forbid >partner to open 1NT (while they routinely open 1NT with 14-18, >despite the 15-17 on the cc) and pros who never make a takeout >double, preferring to overcall with a 4-4-4-1 hand. When I tell a >TD about such things, he/she lectures me about "judgment." There >is no legal judgment involved, as they never vary..... Grattan Endicott, open letter to Adam Wildavsky, 26th October 2009: >>.....When we restarted I resisted rejection of the direction the >>XPM / XA drafts were going in 1997 Laws 40..... Richard Hills: Thanks to Grattan's persistence in improving Law 40, when an ACBL TD lectures Marv about "judgment", Marv in turn can lecture the ACBL TD about the first sentence of the new 2007 Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 24 04:17:38 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:17:38 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Intriguing L36A vs L41C situation References: <000601ca6c47$293de340$7bb9a9c0$@no> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 2:13 PM Subject: [BLML] Intriguing L36A vs L41C situation > An inadmissible double during the auction is not discovered until after start of the play period. > +=+ I understand this concerns a double or redouble that is not permitted by Law 19. In Law 41C there is a point of no return from which, when reached, there can be no re-entry into the auction period. However, if it is discovered after the opening lead has been faced there has been no rectification of a double or redouble not permitted by Law 19, no lawful contract has been established for a declarer to win a given number of odd tricks (see Definitions). It should be noted that Law 36 is triggered by the occurrence and has effect without need for attention to be drawn to the irregularity. In these circumstances the conditions are present, I shall argue, for the application of Law 12A2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Nov 24 04:48:56 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:48:56 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Intriguing L36A vs L41C situation References: <000601ca6c47$293de340$7bb9a9c0$@no> Message-ID: <000501ca6cb9$1e6b79b0$2401a8c0@p41600> Wids of worsdom from Grattan (as usual)...too late, award an assigned score...end. ********************** Another couple of millimetres, and that would have been inch-perfect. ********************** > An inadmissible double during the auction is not > discovered until after start of the play period. > > > +=+ I understand this concerns a double or redouble > that is not permitted by Law 19. > In Law 41C there is a point of no return from > which, when reached, there can be no re-entry into the > auction period. > However, if it is discovered after the opening lead > has been faced there has been no rectification of a > double or redouble not permitted by Law 19, no lawful > contract has been established for a declarer to win a > given number of odd tricks (see Definitions). It should > be noted that Law 36 is triggered by the occurrence > and has effect without need for attention to be drawn > to the irregularity. > In these circumstances the conditions are present, > I shall argue, for the application of Law 12A2. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 24 05:10:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:10:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Intriguing L36A vs L41C situation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>An inadmissible double during the auction is not >>discovered until after start of the play period. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I understand this concerns a double or redouble >that is not permitted by Law 19. Law 35 (Inadmissible Calls): The following calls are inadmissible: 1. A double or redouble not permitted by Law 19. Law 36 applies. 2. A bid, double or redouble by a player required to pass. Law 37 applies. 3. A bid of more than seven. Law 38 applies. 4. A call after the final pass of the auction. Law 39 applies. Grattan Endicott: > In Law 41C there is a point of no return from >which, when reached, there can be no re-entry into the >auction period. > However, if it is discovered after the opening >lead has been faced there has been no rectification of >a double or redouble not permitted by Law 19, no lawful >contract has been established for a declarer to win a >given number of odd tricks (see Definitions). Richard Hills: Rather I would argue that the opening lead is itself unLawful, and should instead be defined as a Law 24 card exposed during the auction period. This interpretation gains weight when examining Law 38A, which specifically states that an opening lead against a contract of 8S is necessarily unLawful. Grattan Endicott: >It should be noted that Law 36 is triggered by the >occurrence and has effect without need for attention to >be drawn to the irregularity. Richard Hills: I disagree; if the Director's attention is not drawn to an unLawful contract of 4Sxx +1480 before the Law 81C3 correction period expires, then it seems to me that that +1480 must stand. Grattan Endicott: > In these circumstances the conditions are present, >I shall argue, for the application of Law 12A2. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Law 12A2 mandates an Artificial Adjusted Score. The alternative route of Law 24 (52 cards exposed during the auction, Law 50 (26 penalty cards) and Law 23 (could well have known) allows the Director to award a more nuanced Assigned Adjusted Score. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 24 06:02:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:02:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Intriguing L36A vs L41C situation In-Reply-To: References: <000601ca6c47$293de340$7bb9a9c0$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:17:38 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "a revolutionary moment in the world's > history is a time for revolutions, not for > patching." > [Beveridge Report, 1942] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 2:13 PM > Subject: [BLML] Intriguing L36A vs L41C situation >> > An inadmissible double during the auction is not > discovered until after start of the play period. >> > +=+ I understand this concerns a double or redouble > that is not permitted by Law 19. > In Law 41C there is a point of no return from > which, when reached, there can be no re-entry into the > auction period. > However, if it is discovered after the opening lead > has been faced there has been no rectification of a > double or redouble not permitted by Law 19, no lawful > contract has been established for a declarer to win a > given number of odd tricks (see Definitions). It should > be noted that Law 36 is triggered by the occurrence > and has effect without need for attention to be drawn > to the irregularity. > In these circumstances the conditions are present, > I shall argue, for the application of Law 12A2. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ My partner and I had a bidding misunderstanding and ended up in 6C. RHO doubled, being able to set the contract in his hand, and LHO doubled, also being able to set the contract in his hand. Bad omen, I thought. I could have held it to down four for 0 matchpoints. You are saying I could have gotten an A-? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 24 06:28:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:28:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] V for Vendetta [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst, 1st July 2006: [snip] >>By the way Manuela, the single character for 10 in English is usually >>'T' not 'X', although I must admit that "X" makes a lot of sense. >> >>Back to Agincourt; 1415. I was telling you about the pig fat and the >>sheep fat and the rats and the bowstrings; well the English V-sign >>comes from here too. As you know, in war, it is more sensible to maim >>your opponent than to kill him, as the other side then has to use its >>resources to look after the injured person, rather than just leaving >>him dead on the field of battle. So when the French archers caught an >>English longbowman, they chopped off the index and middle fingers of >>his pulling hand, so that he would no longer be able to pull his bow. >>So the English longbowman used to show the French archers their >>bowfingers in the well known English salute, "allez vous e*****r >>sales Francais, nous avons les doigts encore" - so the English V-sign >>is specifically designed for us to tell the French what we think of >>them. More Francophobia soon :) best regards John Adam Beneschan, 3rd July 2006: >It *would* make a lot of sense if we didn't constantly use "x" to mean >something else (i.e. an unimportant spot card). However, if someone >starts using V instead of 5, I'm giving up. That one would be >multiply confusing---with the Dutch use of V for "queen", with the >French use of V for "jack", and with the English use of the letter to >tell the French what they think of them......... Manuela Mandache, 3rd July 2006: I surrender! The Duplimate machines in France generate printouts using AKQJ...X, symbolic Anglophobia. I swear I'll never do it again. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 24 07:19:43 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:19:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <98FEB46631464B73B123F7C9B4DD4B25@Mildred> Message-ID: Richard Hills, November 2009: >Note that the draft XA Law 4C phrase "shall fully disclose" was >eventually watered down to the actual 2007 Law 40B6(a) phrase "shall >disclose"; perhaps due to the belief that "full disclosure" is often >impractical (what is needed at the table is "good faith disclosure"). >..... Grattan Endicott, November 2009: +=+ A safety net is provided in Law 40B6(b).+=+ Law 40B6(b): "The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged." Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "crucial, a. Decisive between two hypotheses." Karel, June 2006: >>>>>..... >>>>>4H was described as a heart cue when asked. >>>>> >>>>>We had 2S's + singleton HK to lose. 3NT was actually the spot. >>>>>Anyway ... LHO didn't try to cash his HA because "a heart cue" was >>>>>void or ace. Cue for me is A,K,x or void. >>>>> >>>>>He called the TD and claimed he was misinformed ... was he ? Richard Hills, June 2006: >>>>Yes, in my opinion that was misinformation, and as TD I might have >>>>adjusted the score (depending upon whether the misinformation >>>>caused damage on the actual lie of the cards). >>>> >>>>The explanation of "cue" was overly succinct. Since the >>>>partnership agreement was that 4H showed a first or second round >>>>control in hearts, the non-succinct explanation should have been >>>>"4H shows a first or second round control in hearts". Alain Gottcheiner, June 2006 >>>However, that's the sense which will be given to the word 'cue-bid' >>>by moderate to strong players, at least above 3NT, so what's the >>>misinformation ? (and you may always enquire) Richard Hills, June 2006: >>An important reason why players inadvertently create MI is that they >>fallaciously assume that their opponents are clones of themselves, >>sharing the same so-called general knowledge. >> >>In this thread's stem case, Karel made the "clone" error and now >>Alain has repeated it. >> >>If a pair's only bridge reading has been "Goren's Bridge Complete", >>they will assume that a cue bid guarantees a first round control, so >>they will see no need further to enquire. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 24 10:04:25 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:04:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] V for Vendetta [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B0BA199.4020005@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> It *would* make a lot of sense if we didn't constantly use "x" to mean >> something else (i.e. an unimportant spot card). However, if someone >> starts using V instead of 5, I'm giving up. That one would be >> multiply confusing---with the Dutch use of V for "queen", with the >> French use of V for "jack", and with the English use of the letter to >> tell the French what they think of them......... >> > > This combination indeed creates havoc in Belgium, where the use of French ou Dutch cards is common and upsets players from the other community. > Manuela Mandache, 3rd July 2006: > > I surrender! The Duplimate machines in France generate printouts using > AKQJ...X, symbolic Anglophobia. I swear I'll never do it again. > > I find this logical. A,K,Q,J are written on the cards, whence we're accustomed to those symbols. But T doesn't, and would puzzle many French players. Best regards Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Nov 24 12:25:58 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:25:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> <4B0B0F1D.4030606@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation > [Konrad Ciborowski] > Matchpoints, Love All. You hold: A1085 K10 J62 J432 > _P (_P) 1D (1S) > 1N (_P) ..2D (_P) > What action, if any, does the hesitation suggest? What calls become more > attractive after the hesitation? Passing? Raising? Converting to NT? > None at all? In other words if you had no reservations about drawing > inferences from your partner's hesitation what would you bid? > > [Nige1] > (a) Without the hesitation, _P = 10, 2N = 6, 3D = 4 > (b) Love All at pairs, just winning the auction in 1N will usually > produce a good result. So there is no need to give opponents a second > bite at the cherry unless you have extra values; but this inference is > available *with or without* the hesitation. So, opposite a stranger, I > don't see how the hesitation makes any particular course of action more > attractive. > (c) What the hesitation suggests depends on your methods. For example, > if 1D could be 3 cards, then partner might correct with any 5+ diamonds. > (d) Of course, a player in an experienced partnership, will usually > *know* what partner's hesitation means, but the law does not cater for > that contingency. > This hand #27 http://kozbs.krakow.pl/wyniki/2009/prot091118.txt South bid 2NT in this position and North passed. South got everything right in the play and scored +180 which was unavailable in 2D. East-West complained about the 2NT bid. The TD let the score stand on the grounds that it was equally likely that North might have had a 7 -8 count or so (a third seat opening) and wondering if 2D or 1NT would be the least of evils. In principle this is the reasoning I initially agreed with. But the big problem here is the one mentioned by Nigel. In regular partnerships people know each other's tendencies. I made similar polls on two Polish discussion lists and I got a bunch of different responses. To demonstrate how important a factor mentioned by Nigel is I'll quote one opinion: "I could speak for myself and my partner whom I know all too well. He's a heck of an overbidder. So if it my partner started thinking in this position I'd know immediately that he has a sub-minimum opening bid or no opening bid at all and is wondering how to bail out. Because if he had a shade of a reverse or inviational bid he would make it without thinking too much about it." On the other hand if you look at North's hand you have to wonder why in the world did he pass 2NT. It looks that he thought he had already bid his whole values by the hesitiation: "I bid 2D after hesitation so partner knows that I have extras so if he didn't bid 3NT then appearently it won't make". Or am I being cynical? Anyway the combination of 2NT and North's pass suggests that they were on the same wavelength all the time - South knew the hesitation was much more likely to suggest extras. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wygraj pobyt w Alpach dla ca?ej rodziny Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f2446 From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 24 13:44:39 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:44:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> <4B0B0F1D.4030606@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B0BD537.3090307@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > > Anyway the combination of 2NT and North's pass > suggests that they were on the same wavelength > all the time - South knew the hesitation was much more likely > to suggest extras. > > AG : or they were on the same wavelength all the time, because the 2D bid shows extras. In my pet style (which isn't illegal I hope), p 1H 1NT 2H is constructive, because of the wide range for 3rd seat 2-bids. If they play a weak 2D, then perforce 2D over 1NT becomes constructive. (and also, with at least one of my partners, taking out 1NT is always constructive) Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 24 11:54:42 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:54:42 -0000 Subject: [BLML] V for Vendetta [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:28 AM Subject: [BLML] V for Vendetta [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Adam Beneschan, 3rd July 2006: > >>It *would* make a lot of sense if we didn't constantly use "x" to mean >>something else (i.e. an unimportant spot card). However, if someone >>starts using V instead of 5, I'm giving up. That one would be >>multiply confusing---with the Dutch use of V for "queen", with the >>French use of V for "jack", and with the English use of the letter to >>tell the French what they think of them......... > +=+ We have progressed since then. The English now identify as an honorary French national anyone worthy of receiving our message. +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 24 16:54:36 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:54:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> <4B0B0F1D.4030606@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0BD537.3090307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <95D81A0488C84876A618533829C34B8C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (and also, with at least one of my partners, taking out 1NT is always constructive) +=+ No problem, surely? Your system card will state as much. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at tameware.com Tue Nov 24 19:57:36 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:57:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft In-Reply-To: <694eadd40911220859i2ac702a6x56d838e61ff48c2a@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40911220859i2ac702a6x56d838e61ff48c2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40911241057l5a23869atb05981d8d884ebe9@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > With Grattan's permission I have posted a copy of the XA draft of the > Laws. This complete rewrite of the laws has been mentioned on BLML but > never posted. It was eventually abandoned in favor of a version that > evolved incrementally from the 1997 Laws. > > http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/xa_draft.html > > This consists of scanned PDFs. If anyway can use OCR to produce a text > version I'd be delighted to post that as well. Also, please let me > know if you notice any missing pages. It's always possible that two > stuck together during the scanning. Thanks to the efforts of Roger Pewick I have now posted text versions in PDF, MS-Word, and RTF formats. If you notice any missing pages or text please drop me a line. I've left the scanned versions up for reference. A few people reported problems with some pages rendered as all black -- I don't know what causes that. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091124/29bbe076/attachment.html From schoderb at msn.com Tue Nov 24 22:06:29 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:06:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft In-Reply-To: <694eadd40911220859i2ac702a6x56d838e61ff48c2a@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40911241057l5a23869atb05981d8d884ebe9@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40911220859i2ac702a6x56d838e61ff48c2a@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40911241057l5a23869atb05981d8d884ebe9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Some clarification wouldn't hurt before the descent of what will probably be voluminous comments. Within the Drafting Committee Grattan submitted a proposal to rewrite the laws with differing numbers, chapters, organization, and an almost complete rewrite of the wording. It contained some changes of laws and would have eliminated the format in use for decades. The committee did not agree and decided to continue by incremental changes. BLML readers should be made aware that the law changes of Grattan's proposal were carefully considered by the committee during its deliberations along with the great many more proposals by other members and the bridge community. This internal committee proposal now appears to take on a character and existence of its own and I'm sure it is ego gratifying for my good friend for it to do so. Particularly when Mr. Wildavsky - a steadfast proponent of "Incremental change"-- posts his work. I applaud Grattan for the hard work he did in preparing his proposal -- now labeled the "XA Draft." If anyone thinks it was a simple job they are sadly mistaken and at least mentally challenged. Perhaps he can create support for his desire to prevail in future reviews. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Wildavsky To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] XA Draft On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: With Grattan's permission I have posted a copy of the XA draft of the Laws. This complete rewrite of the laws has been mentioned on BLML but never posted. It was eventually abandoned in favor of a version that evolved incrementally from the 1997 Laws. http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/xa_draft.html This consists of scanned PDFs. If anyway can use OCR to produce a text version I'd be delighted to post that as well. Also, please let me know if you notice any missing pages. It's always possible that two stuck together during the scanning. Thanks to the efforts of Roger Pewick I have now posted text versions in PDF, MS-Word, and RTF formats. If you notice any missing pages or text please drop me a line. I've left the scanned versions up for reference. A few people reported problems with some pages rendered as all black -- I don't know what causes that. -- Adam Wildavsky > www.tameware.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091124/66d65bae/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 24 23:00:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:00:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder: >Some clarification wouldn't hurt before the descent of what will >probably be voluminous comments. Within the Drafting Committee >Grattan submitted a proposal to rewrite the laws with differing >numbers, chapters, organization, and an almost complete rewrite of >the wording. It contained some changes of laws and would have >eliminated the format in use for decades. The committee did not >agree and decided to continue by incremental changes. Star Trek (The Galileo Seven episode): Spock: Strange. Step by step, I've made the correct and logical decisions, and yet two men have died. Richard Hills: Incremental changes to the Laws' meaning = correct and logical Incremental changes to the Laws' format = incorrect and illogical William ("Kojak") Schoder: >BLML readers should be made aware that the law changes of Grattan's >proposal were carefully considered by the committee during its >deliberations along with the great many more proposals by other >members and the bridge community. Richard Hills: Indeed, some posts from blmlers influenced the Drafting Committee in both thetical and antithetical ways. An example of blml's thetical influence is the new 2007 Law 65B3, when blml discussion proved that there was a corresponding hole in the 1997 Lawbook. An example of a lateral-thinking blmler's antithetical influence, with his idiosyncratic interpretation of the 1997 Law 87 (Fouled Board), is that the Drafting Committee tightened the wording of the 2007 Law 87 to preclude such a lateral-thinking interpretation in future. William ("Kojak") Schoder: >This internal committee proposal now appears to take on a character >and existence of its own and I'm sure it is ego gratifying for my >good friend for it to do so. Richard Hills: It was not only ego gratifying for me to be a semi-official Man Friday to Grattan during the final year of the drafting process, but also I consider it to be the highlight of my bridge career. William ("Kojak") Schoder: >Particularly when Mr. Wildavsky - a steadfast proponent of >"Incremental change"-- posts his work. I applaud Grattan for the >hard work he did in preparing his proposal -- now labeled the "XA >Draft." If anyone thinks it was a simple job they are sadly >mistaken and at least mentally challenged. Perhaps he can create >support for his desire to prevail in future reviews. Richard Hills: Duplicate Bridge is not the only intellectual game of skill that I and Alain Gottcheiner play. We both play a variety of games known collectively as Eurogames. The rules of these Eurogames often have the format of the main rules on the leftmost two thirds of the page, with indicative examples on the rightmost one third. Where appropriate, both the main rules and the indicative examples are illustrated with full colour pictures. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 25 00:15:19 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:15:19 -0600 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft In-Reply-To: <694eadd40911220859i2ac702a6x56d838e61ff48c2a@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40911241057l5a23869atb05981d8d884ebe9@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40911220859i2ac702a6x56d838e61ff48c2a@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40911241057l5a23869atb05981d8d884ebe9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Kojak's passion for understatement is duly noted. regards roger pewick From: WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 15:06 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] XA Draft Some clarification wouldn't hurt before the descent of what will probably be voluminous comments. Within the Drafting Committee Grattan submitted a proposal to rewrite the laws with differing numbers, chapters, organization, and an almost complete rewrite of the wording. It contained some changes of laws and would have eliminated the format in use for decades. The committee did not agree and decided to continue by incremental changes. BLML readers should be made aware that the law changes of Grattan's proposal were carefully considered by the committee during its deliberations along with the great many more proposals by other members and the bridge community. This internal committee proposal now appears to take on a character and existence of its own and I'm sure it is ego gratifying for my good friend for it to do so. Particularly when Mr. Wildavsky - a steadfast proponent of "Incremental change"-- posts his work. I applaud Grattan for the hard work he did in preparing his proposal -- now labeled the "XA Draft." If anyone thinks it was a simple job they are sadly mistaken and at least mentally challenged. Perhaps he can create support for his desire to prevail in future reviews. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091124/c9acbcd4/attachment.html From schoderb at msn.com Wed Nov 25 01:32:02 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:32:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft In-Reply-To: <694eadd40911220859i2ac702a6x56d838e61ff48c2a@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40911241057l5a23869atb05981d8d884ebe9@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40911220859i2ac702a6x56d838e61ff48c2a@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40911241057l5a23869atb05981d8d884ebe9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] XA Draft Kojak's passion for understatement is duly noted. regards roger pewick Thank you Roger. Your brevity is duly noted. Kojak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091125/1e852bfc/attachment.html From schoderb at msn.com Wed Nov 25 01:46:38 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:46:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills: Incremental changes to the Laws' meaning = correct and logical Incremental changes to the Laws' format = incorrect and illogical #### Sorry you missed the incremental changes in the 2008 format. #### Richard Hills . Indeed, some posts from blmlers influenced the Drafting Committee in both thetical and antithetical ways. An example of blml's thetical influence is the new 2007 Law 65B3, when blml discussion proved that there was a corresponding hole in the 1997 Lawbook. An example of a lateral-thinking blmler's antithetical influence, with his idiosyncratic interpretation of the 1997 Law 87 (Fouled Board), is that the Drafting Committee tightened the wording of the 2007 Law 87 to preclude such a lateral-thinking interpretation in future. #### Gee, what a beautiful display of obfuscation! #### Richard Hills: Duplicate Bridge is not the only intellectual game of skill that I and Alain Gottcheiner play. We both play a variety of games known collectively as Eurogames. The rules of these Eurogames often have the format of the main rules on the leftmost two thirds of the page, with indicative examples on the rightmost one third. Where appropriate, both the main rules and the indicative examples are illustrated with full colour pictures. #### Could that be applied as a future incremental change of format, or does it only work for Rules and not Laws? #### Best wishes #### Kojak #### aka William Schoder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091125/ba0d38f5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 25 02:41:53 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:41:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder: >Gee, what a beautiful display of obfuscation! Richard Hills: I know Symmetric Relay, English Acol, and the Ghestem pox; In my comment'ry on Lawbooks I've a pretty taste for paradox, I quote in elegiacs all revokes of Heliogabalus, When claiming I can state peculiarities parabolous; I can tell undoubted squeezes from pseudo-squeeze epiphanies, I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes! Then I can hum a ruling of which I've heard the players panic for, And whistle all the airs from that infernal book XA Draft Law. Blml Chorus: And whistle all the airs from that infernal book XA Draft Law, While waiting for the airs from that infernal book XY Draft Law, Next year the airs from that infernal book XY Draaaaaaaaft Law. Richard Hills: Then I can write my bridge laws posts in Babylonic cuneiform, And cite the inconsistencies of exegeses scarce uniform: In short, in Lawbooks comment'ry, and as a quibbling editor, I am the very model of a modern bridge competitor. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 25 04:25:56 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:25:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Duplicate Bridge is not the only intellectual game of skill that I >>and Alain Gottcheiner play. We both play a variety of games known >>collectively as Eurogames. The rules of these Eurogames often have >>the format of the main rules on the leftmost two thirds of the page, >>with indicative examples on the rightmost one third. Where >>appropriate, both the main rules and the indicative examples are >>illustrated with full colour pictures. William ("Kojak") Schoder: >Could that be applied as a future incremental change of format, or >does it only work for Rules and not Laws? J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Prologue: "There remained, of course, the ancient tradition concerning the high king at Fornost, or Norbury as they called it, away north of the Shire. But there had been no king for nearly a thousand years, and even the ruins of Kings' Norbury were covered with grass. Yet the Hobbits still said of wild folk and wicked things (such as trolls) that they had not heard of the king. For they attributed to the king of old all their essential laws; and usually they kept the laws of free will, because they were The Rules (as they said), both ancient and just." Richard Hills: The ancient and just Laws of Duplicate Bridge are synonymous with The Rules of Duplicate Bridge. So indeed the modern technology of desktop publishing could be used to incrementally improve the format of the Duplicate Rules by laying them side by side with the indicative examples in the Appendix to the Duplicate Rules. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 25 12:05:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:05:25 -0000 Subject: [BLML] XA Draft [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] XA Draft [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > William ("Kojak") Schoder: > Some clarification wouldn't hurt before the descent of what will probably be voluminous comments. Within the Drafting Committee Grattan submitted a proposal to rewrite the laws with differing numbers, chapters, organization, and an almost complete rewrite of the wording. It contained some changes of laws and would have eliminated the format in use for decades. The .committee did not agree and decided to continue by incremental changes. > +=+ This history can be expanded somewhat. I wrote my initial new work in 2001/02, although I had laid out a plan for it earlier than that. . John Wignall visited England to go through it with me, and the language of the product was much tailored in consequence. The Drafting Committee then developed the opus over a period of two-and-a-half years plus. The 'XA' version was the latest draft, incorporating the most recent suggestions agreed upon by the DC at the time when we were informed by the ACBL Laws Commission that it would not support the total reconstruction of the Code of Laws on which we were embarked, and that it desired the laws should evolve incrementally. Obviously that pulled the plug on our scheme which was then abandoned in 2005. Some of its ideas were injected into the incremental revision that ensued. I was surprised that Adam planned to make the museum piece available to the community at large, for research or for pruriginous curiosity as the case may be. But then, I was equally astounded that in 2002-05 a group of committee members, maturely entrenched one might suppose in the furrow of history, was ready to consider seriously the scratchings of a septuagenarian iconoclast. Here for the time being history has paused. It is my conviction that the current code of laws remains a thing of shreds and patches, of incremental snatches, and that one day a future generation may yet see the reconstruction, the modern architecture for which I yearn so ardently. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Nov 25 14:01:44 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:01:44 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <95D81A0488C84876A618533829C34B8C@Mildred> References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> <4B0B0F1D.4030606@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0BD537.3090307@ulb.ac.be> <95D81A0488C84876A618533829C34B8C@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B0D2AB8.9000708@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan Endicott] (and also, with at least one of my partners, taking out 1NT is always constructive) [Alain Gottcheiner] +=+ No problem, surely? Your system card will state as much. [Nigel] Intriguing exchange :) In this context, IMO, I agree with Alain that a 2D rebid would normally show extra values. 2D encourages oppoents to complete. Also, not vulnerable at pairs, you usually get a good result from playing in 1N undoubled (whether you make it or not). This is inherent in the game. The inference is available from perusal of the scoring table. It is general knowledge and experience. I sympathise with Grattan's idea that such knowledge be disclosed; but would not go so far as to include it on my system card. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Nov 25 14:16:45 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:16:45 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <4B0D2AB8.9000708@yahoo.co.uk> References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> <4B0B0F1D.4030606@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0BD537.3090307@ulb.ac.be> <95D81A0488C84876A618533829C34B8C@Mildred> <4B0D2AB8.9000708@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On 25 Nov 2009, at 13:01, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Intriguing exchange :) In this context, IMO, I agree with Alain that a > 2D rebid would normally show extra values. 2D encourages oppoents to > complete. Also, not vulnerable at pairs, you usually get a good result > from playing in 1N undoubled (whether you make it or not). This is > inherent in the game. The inference is available from perusal of the > scoring table. It is general knowledge and experience. Not my experience: I would be extremely surprised to find opponents for whom taking out a 1NT response shows extras. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 25 14:52:24 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:52:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> <4B0B0F1D.4030606@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0BD537.3090307@ulb.ac.be> <95D81A0488C84876A618533829C34B8C@Mildred> <4B0D2AB8.9000708@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B0D3698.5020507@ulb.ac.be> Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > On 25 Nov 2009, at 13:01, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> Intriguing exchange :) In this context, IMO, I agree with Alain that a >> 2D rebid would normally show extra values. 2D encourages oppoents to >> complete. Also, not vulnerable at pairs, you usually get a good result >> from playing in 1N undoubled (whether you make it or not). This is >> inherent in the game. The inference is available from perusal of the >> scoring table. It is general knowledge and experience. >> > > Not my experience: I would be extremely surprised to find opponents > for whom taking out a 1NT response shows extras. > Here I am. (well, that mainly applies to 3rd seat openers, but that was the case IIRC) As I would open 2D 3rd-in-hand on as much as xx-AKJxxx-Kxx-Jx, 1H-1NT-2H shows more than that. Easy. This inference has regularly been exploited in my partnerships. As Nigel states it, opponents will often reopen and partner will be glad to cut their head off. And the same applies to 1H-1NT-2m, in a few partnerships where I play "dutch twos". Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 25 16:32:24 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:32:24 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> <4B0B0F1D.4030606@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0BD537.3090307@ulb.ac.be> <95D81A0488C84876A618533829C34B8C@Mildred> <4B0D2AB8.9000708@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0D3698.5020507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8B249823FD6B424EBD94FED41984B103@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > On 25 Nov 2009, at 13:01, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> Intriguing exchange :) In this context, IMO, I agree with Alain that a >> 2D rebid would normally show extra values. 2D encourages oppoents to >> complete. Also, not vulnerable at pairs, you usually get a good result >> from playing in 1N undoubled (whether you make it or not). This is >> inherent in the game. The inference is available from perusal of the >> scoring table. It is general knowledge and experience. >> > > Not my experience: I would be extremely surprised to find opponents > for whom taking out a 1NT response shows extras. > Here I am. (well, that mainly applies to 3rd seat openers, but that was the case IIRC) As I would open 2D 3rd-in-hand on as much as xx-AKJxxx-Kxx-Jx, 1H-1NT-2H shows more than that. Easy. This inference has regularly been exploited in my partnerships. As Nigel states it, opponents will often reopen and partner will be glad to cut their head off. And the same applies to 1H-1NT-2m, in a few partnerships where I play "dutch twos". +=+ Forget "general knowledge and experience". This is outmoded terminology. Concentrate on "matters generally known to bridge players!". This very restricted corpus of knowledge certainly does not include an awareness that a minimum rebid of opener's suit after a 1NT response shows extra values. The inference to which Alain alludes is confined to no more than a limited proportion of the bridge-playing community. I am shocked to read that "This inference has regularly been exploited in my partnerships. As Nigel states it, opponents will often reopen and partner will be glad to cut their head off.". There is not the least doubt but that opponents are entitled to be forewarned of this; it constitutes information to which Law 40B6(b) applies. I fail to see what means of disclosure is available for such an item other than a mention on the system card. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 25 16:58:21 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:58:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <8B249823FD6B424EBD94FED41984B103@Mildred> References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> <4B0B0F1D.4030606@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0BD537.3090307@ulb.ac.be> <95D81A0488C84876A618533829C34B8C@Mildred> <4B0D2AB8.9000708@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0D3698.5020507@ulb.ac.be> <8B249823FD6B424EBD94FED41984B103@Mildred> Message-ID: <4B0D541D.90100@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ Forget "general knowledge and experience". This is outmoded > terminology. Concentrate on "matters generally known to bridge players!". > This very restricted corpus of knowledge certainly does not include an > awareness that a minimum rebid of opener's suit after a 1NT response > shows extra values. The inference to which Alain alludes is confined > to no more than a limited proportion of the bridge-playing community. > I am shocked to read that "This inference has regularly been > exploited in my partnerships. As Nigel states it, opponents will often > reopen and partner will be glad to cut their head off.". There is not the > least doubt but that opponents are entitled to be forewarned of this; it > constitutes information to which Law 40B6(b) applies. I fail to see > what means of disclosure is available for such an item other than a > mention on the system card. > AG : excerpt of our notes : "no light 3-rd seat opening bids ; 3rd-hand 2-and 3-bids might be flawed and/or sound" From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 25 18:06:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:06:53 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation References: <743A4BBCB2BA4B029DD587E11167335F@sfora4869e47f1> <4B0B0F1D.4030606@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0BD537.3090307@ulb.ac.be> <95D81A0488C84876A618533829C34B8C@Mildred> <4B0D2AB8.9000708@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0D3698.5020507@ulb.ac.be><8B249823FD6B424EBD94FED41984B103@Mildred> <4B0D541D.90100@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ Forget "general knowledge and experience". This is outmoded > terminology. Concentrate on "matters generally known to bridge players!". > This very restricted corpus of knowledge certainly does not include an > awareness that a minimum rebid of opener's suit after a 1NT response > shows extra values. The inference to which Alain alludes is confined > to no more than a limited proportion of the bridge-playing community. > I am shocked to read that "This inference has regularly been > exploited in my partnerships. As Nigel states it, opponents will often > reopen and partner will be glad to cut their head off.". There is not the > least doubt but that opponents are entitled to be forewarned of this; it > constitutes information to which Law 40B6(b) applies. I fail to see > what means of disclosure is available for such an item other than a > mention on the system card. > AG : excerpt of our notes : "no light 3-rd seat opening bids ; 3rd-hand 2-and 3-bids might be flawed and/or sound" << +=+ Insufficiently specific. *Must* do better. Over something like this you cannot leave it to inference. CPU and standards of fair play, duty to opponents, are involved. Please rethink. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Nov 25 19:36:18 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:36:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 Message-ID: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> A player makes a call (let's say 1D) and then changes his mind and corrects the bid to 1S. LHO accepts the 1S bid as allowed by L25B. Call Intended 1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender?s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues. This player ends up defending, his partner on lead. Declarer can insist on or prohibit a diamond lead under L26. Correct? From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Nov 25 19:44:50 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:44:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?L25_=26_L26?= In-Reply-To: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> From: Gordon Rainsford > A player makes a call (let's say 1D) and then changes his mind and ? > corrects the bid to 1S. LHO accepts the 1S bid as allowed by > > L25B. Call Intended > 1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the ? > offender?s > LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first ? > call is > then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues. > > This player ends up defending, his partner on lead. Declarer can ? > insist on or prohibit a diamond lead under L26. Correct? sure, as long as 1 D is / was natural. Law 26 starts with "When an offending player?s call is withdrawn [...]" and then see Law 26 A. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Nov 25 21:36:11 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:36:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 In-Reply-To: <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On 25 Nov 2009, at 18:44, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Gordon Rainsford >> A player makes a call (let's say 1D) and then changes his mind and >> corrects the bid to 1S. LHO accepts the 1S bid as allowed by >> >> L25B. Call Intended >> 1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the >> offender?s >> LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first >> call is >> then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues. >> >> This player ends up defending, his partner on lead. Declarer can >> insist on or prohibit a diamond lead under L26. Correct? > > sure, as long as 1 D is / was natural. > > Law 26 starts with "When an offending player?s call is withdrawn > [...]" > and then see Law 26 A. OK. So then an auction in which an insufficient bid in NT is corrected under L27B1a - eg (2S) - P - (P) - 1NT/2NT (P) - P - (3S) - All Pass Now declarer can forbid the lead of any one suit under L26B? From matthias.schueller at gmx.de Wed Nov 25 21:55:17 2009 From: matthias.schueller at gmx.de (=?windows-1252?Q?Matthias_Sch=FCller?=) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:55:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 In-Reply-To: References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4B0D99B5.3020101@gmx.de> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 25 Nov 2009, at 18:44, Peter Eidt wrote: > >> From: Gordon Rainsford >>> A player makes a call (let's say 1D) and then changes his mind and >>> corrects the bid to 1S. LHO accepts the 1S bid as allowed by >>> >>> L25B. Call Intended >>> 1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the >>> offender?s >>> LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first >>> call is >>> then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues. >>> >>> This player ends up defending, his partner on lead. Declarer can >>> insist on or prohibit a diamond lead under L26. Correct? >> sure, as long as 1 D is / was natural. >> >> Law 26 starts with "When an offending player?s call is withdrawn >> [...]" >> and then see Law 26 A. > > OK. So then an auction in which an insufficient bid in NT is > corrected under L27B1a - > eg (2S) - P - (P) - 1NT/2NT > (P) - P - (3S) - All Pass > > Now declarer can forbid the lead of any one suit under L26B? No. WBF LC, 10th October 2008: "It was also agreed that where it says in Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) that ?the auction proceeds without further rectification? this is interpreted as meaning that the auction and play continue without further rectification." The TD can, of course, still apply L27D if necessary. Matthias From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 25 23:31:32 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:31:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 In-Reply-To: <4B0D99B5.3020101@gmx.de> References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4B0D99B5.3020101@gmx.de> Message-ID: <000001ca6e1f$0a9292e0$1fb7b8a0$@no> On Behalf Of Matthias Sch?ller > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 25 Nov 2009, at 18:44, Peter Eidt wrote: > > > >> From: Gordon Rainsford > >>> A player makes a call (let's say 1D) and then changes his mind and > >>> corrects the bid to 1S. LHO accepts the 1S bid as allowed by > >>> > >>> L25B. Call Intended > >>> 1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the > >>> offender?s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) > >>> The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the > >>> auction continues. > >>> > >>> This player ends up defending, his partner on lead. Declarer can > >>> insist on or prohibit a diamond lead under L26. Correct? > >> sure, as long as 1 D is / was natural. > >> > >> Law 26 starts with "When an offending player?s call is withdrawn > >> [...]" > >> and then see Law 26 A. > > > > OK. So then an auction in which an insufficient bid in NT is corrected > > under L27B1a - eg (2S) - P - (P) - 1NT/2NT > > (P) - P - (3S) - All Pass > > > > Now declarer can forbid the lead of any one suit under L26B? > > No. WBF LC, 10th October 2008: > "It was also agreed that where it says in Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) that ?the > auction proceeds without further rectification? this is interpreted as meaning that > the auction and play continue without further rectification." Law 27 explicitly states "without rectification" and "Law 26 may apply" where relevant and thus causes no problem (or change from the previous laws in this respect). OP raised the question related to Law 25B, and here we may have a problem: Before 2007 Law 25B specifically stated "without penalty" when the changed call was accepted, the corresponding clause "without further rectification" has been removed in the 2007 laws. It appears to me that even when LHO accepts the change of a call under law 25B Law 26 does indeed now apply on the retracted call. As this is a major change (that for instance I have been unaware of) I should like to have some confirmation that this change was really intended and not just an accident. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 25 23:40:31 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:40:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Logical alternative [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Worse than that, they are playing what a former senior member of >>the ABF defined as a "private system". In what was an unpublicised >>notorious case some years ago, a sponsor and his professional >>partner were discovered by the ABF to be using one-way transfers. >>The punishment fitted the crime; the professional's income was >>severely reduced when the ABF imposed a ban on that pro partnering >>that sponsor in future ABF events. (I believe that the sponsor is >>now achieving some success playing with a team of different pros on >>the European circuit.) Marv French: >>>Other examples I have witnessed at NABCs include pros who forbid >>>partner to open 1NT (while they routinely open 1NT with 14-18, >>>despite the 15-17 on the cc) and pros who never make a takeout >>>double, preferring to overcall with a 4-4-4-1 hand. When I tell a >>>TD about such things, he/she lectures me about "judgment." There >>>is no legal judgment involved, as they never vary..... Grattan Endicott, open letter to Adam Wildavsky, 26th October 2009: >>>>.....When we restarted I resisted rejection of the direction >>>>the XPM / XA drafts were going in 1997 Laws 40..... Richard Hills: >>Thanks to Grattan's persistence in improving Law 40, when an ACBL >>TD lectures Marv about "judgment", Marv in turn can lecture the >>ACBL TD about the first sentence of the new 2007 Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." Private email from a blml lurker who wishes their name withheld: >We have many Pros playing at the club so the situation described >above is sadly not unfamiliar to me however, to the best of my >knowledge, none of the pros are using "private systems". > >Some minority of the pros use a system where there are 2 ways of >bidding a hand and they just know the student will always use the >standard way without getting creative and they can use a different >sequence that will make them the declarer more often. > >I did check with several authorities I highly respect regarding this >practice and been advised that as long as both partners use the same >system and that they have no special concealed understanding that one >partner must use certain bids and/or is not allowed to use certain >bids in the system then they are not breaking any laws and simply the >pros are doing their best to maximize their chances for winning. >Someone actually compared it to the Pro taking a different line of >play as declarer. > >Any thoughts? Richard Hills: My thoughts are that the highly respected authorities define "system" as the explicit understandings of the partnership. This definition may well have been correct under the previous 1997 Lawbook, a thing of shreds and patches. W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado: A wandering minstrel I-- A thing of shreds and patches, Of ballads, songs and snatches, And dreamy lullaby! My catalogue is long, Through every passion ranging, And to your humours changing I tune my supple song! Richard Hills: But now these are The Rules imposed by the second sentence of Law 40C1: "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system." Richard Hills: So if in a particular situation the notional partnership understanding is that Call A will be chosen 50% of the time and Call B the other 50% of the time, but the Sponsor chooses Call A 100% of the time and the Pro chooses Call B 100% of the time, then the partnership has achieved an implicit understanding that they are playing different systems. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at tameware.com Thu Nov 26 00:18:46 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:18:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC appeals now combined In-Reply-To: <4B016E0B.2030707@aol.com> References: <80AA2ABD5DDD43FAA8256AB742BF28EE@MARVLAPTOP> <4B016E0B.2030707@aol.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40911251518q18784f0bv850043fa2c2762a4@mail.gmail.com> Apparently the ACBL does care. Marvin's combined PDFs for Houston and DC are now available from the ACBL casebook pages: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Houston2009.html http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Washington2009.html If Marvin or anyone else cares to produce similar files for other NABCs which are currently available only as individual cases I shall be happy to pass them on. Thanks, Marvin! AW On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > I agree. It costs time, effort and nerves to download the cases singly. > The previous method where we could download them all at once was much > better. Doesn't the ACBL care about pleasing its members? JE > > Marvin L French schrieb: > > I have posted two new pdf files on my web site under Bridge Laws and > > Regulations. At the bottom of that page are two pdf files that > > combine both NABC+ and non-NABC+ cases from the Washington NABC. I > > deleted the Boston NABC cases because the page is getting crowded > > and I have no intention of maintaining a complete history of NABC > > casebooks. > > > > Adam, the ACBL should be doing this. A "casebook" is a completed > > volume, not a collection of individual cases. Before 2006 the cases > > were combined into one pdf file and that policy should be resumed. > > It took me only about 20 minutes. Mine could be copied onto the ACBL > > web site, but the "not made here" attitude may prevent that. > > > > The ACBL used to sell printed casebooks at NABCs, but I suppose > > some bean counter stopped the practice. > > > > Marv > > Marvin L French > > San Diego, CA > > www.marvinfrench.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 > -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091125/dad6d6ea/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Nov 26 01:02:46 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:02:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] humble question Message-ID: <4B0DC5A6.3090301@aol.com> Warning: The following may be based on a misunderstanding (by me). I recall that some time ago a number of blmlers stated that after (example) a bidding sequence of: 1 diamond pass 1 spade a double would show the other two suits. Standard practice. some (many) blmlers seemed to play a bid of 1NT in this position as also showing the other two suits. Have I misunderstood something? If not what is the difference between the two bids? When does one double and when does one call 1NT? Does this also apply after?: Pass 1 diamond pass 1 spade JE From RCraigH at aol.com Thu Nov 26 01:17:21 2009 From: RCraigH at aol.com (RCraigH at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:17:21 EST Subject: [BLML] humble question Message-ID: When playing 1NT as a takeout for the unbid suits, it is typically highly unbalanced and requires less in the form of high card points. A double would be/could be a stronger hand in high cards, but less in distribution, although the follow-ups to both sequences allow for nuances frequently undiscussed. Thus, 1C - P - 1S - 1N might be bid on xx KQTxx QJxxx x, with favorable vulnerablility, while 1C - P - 1S - DOUBLE might be bid with Kx AKxx AJxxx xx At least that is how I play it. bidding again would emphasize/clarify aspects of the hand not previously shown. Craig Hemphill In a message dated 11/25/2009 7:03:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, JffEstrsn at aol.com writes: Warning: The following may be based on a misunderstanding (by me). I recall that some time ago a number of blmlers stated that after (example) a bidding sequence of: 1 diamond pass 1 spade a double would show the other two suits. Standard practice. some (many) blmlers seemed to play a bid of 1NT in this position as also showing the other two suits. Have I misunderstood something? If not what is the difference between the two bids? When does one double and when does one call 1NT? Does this also apply after?: Pass 1 diamond pass 1 spade JE _______________________________________________ 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/20091126/611bfc65/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 26 01:38:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:38:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Has he station? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8B249823FD6B424EBD94FED41984B103@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] > I am shocked to read that "This inference has regularly been >exploited in my partnerships. As Nigel states it, opponents will often >reopen and partner will be glad to cut their head off.". There is not >the least doubt but that opponents are entitled to be forewarned of >this; it constitutes information to which Law 40B6(b) applies. I fail >to see what means of disclosure is available for such an item other >than a mention on the system card. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: "Opponents will often overcall and partner will be glad to cut their head off" since, at imps with all vul: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Ali Quail Hills De Livera 1H 2C (1) X (2) Pass (3) Pass Pass (1) Opening values, AKJ of clubs, but only a five-card club suit (2) Penalty double (3) A yarborough but with six spades, so as the cards lay 2Sx would only cost -500, but East also held a doubleton in clubs North-South +1100. At the other table North-South were playing the highly recommended negative doubles (voted the best convention of the 20th century in a poll of ACBL experts), so North chose the highly recommended trap pass. Alas, South held 5-5 in the red suits, chose to reopen with 2D, so their number was only +660. However..... Not only are the Ali-Hills penalty doubles prominently displayed on the front page of our system cards, they are also verbally pre-Alerted at the start of each round or match. Chris Quail did not lose 10 imps because he was unaware of an inference in our methods; rather he took the risk of overcalling with his eyes open because the alternative... "Pass is too dangerous" -- Bobby Wolff Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 26 04:08:09 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:08:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001ca6e1f$0a9292e0$1fb7b8a0$@no> Message-ID: archys life of mehitabel (1933) 'archy says': now and then there is a person born who is so unlucky that he runs into accidents which started to happen to somebody else. Sven Pran says: [snip] >It appears to me that even when LHO accepts the change of a call under >Law 25B, Law 26 does indeed now apply on the retracted call. > >As this is a major change (that for instance I have been unaware of) I >should like to have some confirmation that this change was really >intended and not just an accident. An intended addition to the 2007 Definitions says: "Withdrawn - actions said to be 'withdrawn' include actions that are 'cancelled' and cards that are 'retracted'." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 08:03:52 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:03:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 In-Reply-To: <000001ca6e1f$0a9292e0$1fb7b8a0$@no> References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4B0D99B5.3020101@gmx.de> <000001ca6e1f$0a9292e0$1fb7b8a0$@no> Message-ID: 2009/11/25 Sven Pran : > On Behalf Of Matthias Sch?ller >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> > On 25 Nov 2009, at 18:44, Peter Eidt wrote: >> > >> >> From: Gordon Rainsford >> >>> A player makes a call (let's say 1D) and then changes his mind and >> >>> corrects the bid to 1S. LHO accepts the 1S bid as allowed by >> >>> >> >>> L25B. Call Intended >> >>> 1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the >> >>> offender?s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) >> >>> The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the >> >>> auction continues. >> >>> >> >>> This player ends up defending, his partner on lead. Declarer can >> >>> insist on or prohibit a diamond lead under L26. Correct? >> >> sure, as long as 1 D is / was natural. >> >> >> >> Law 26 starts with "When an offending player?s call is withdrawn >> >> [...]" >> >> and then see Law 26 A. >> > >> > OK. So then an auction in which an insufficient bid in NT is corrected >> > under L27B1a - eg (2S) - P - (P) - 1NT/2NT >> > ? ? ?(P) - P - (3S) - All Pass >> > >> > Now declarer can forbid the lead of any one suit under L26B? >> >> No. WBF LC, 10th October 2008: >> "It was also agreed that where it says in Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) that > ?the >> auction proceeds without further rectification? this is interpreted as > meaning that >> the auction and play continue without further rectification." > > Law 27 explicitly states "without rectification" and "Law 26 may apply" > where relevant and thus causes no problem (or change from the previous laws > in this respect). > > OP raised the question related to Law 25B, and here we may have a problem: > Before 2007 Law 25B specifically stated "without penalty" when the changed > call was accepted, the corresponding clause "without further rectification" > has been removed in the 2007 laws. > > It appears to me that even when LHO accepts the change of a call under law > 25B Law 26 does indeed now apply on the retracted call. > > As this is a major change (that for instance I have been unaware of) I > should like to have some confirmation that this change was really intended > and not just an accident. I see in my english version of the 2007 Laws I've written after L25B1 and L25B2 "26 apply". I'm not sure when I did this, but presume I did so on a TD seminar at Hell where Ton Kooijman was present. > > 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 Thu Nov 26 09:51:08 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:51:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000001ca6e1f$0a9292e0$1fb7b8a0$@no> Message-ID: <000d01ca6e75$98a0e270$c9e2a750$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > archys life of mehitabel (1933) 'archy says': > > now and then > there is a person born > who is so unlucky > that he runs into accidents > which started to happen > to somebody else. > > Sven Pran says: > > [snip] > > >It appears to me that even when LHO accepts the change of a call under > >Law 25B, Law 26 does indeed now apply on the retracted call. > > > >As this is a major change (that for instance I have been unaware of) I > >should like to have some confirmation that this change was really > >intended and not just an accident. > > An intended addition to the 2007 Definitions says: > > "Withdrawn - actions said to be 'withdrawn' include actions that are 'cancelled' and > cards that are 'retracted'." Yes and the 1997 version of Law 25B1 said: The substituted call may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO (6); then, the second call stands and the auction proceeds without penalty ....... (Footnote 6 refers to when the first call was an insufficient bid). The equivalence of the words "without penalty" has been deleted in the 2007 law 25B1 Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 26 09:53:02 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:53:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] humble question In-Reply-To: <4B0DC5A6.3090301@aol.com> References: <4B0DC5A6.3090301@aol.com> Message-ID: <4B0E41EE.4060007@ulb.ac.be> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > Warning: The following may be based on a misunderstanding (by me). > > I recall that some time ago a number of blmlers stated that after > (example) a bidding sequence of: > > 1 diamond pass 1 spade > > a double would show the other two suits. Standard practice. > > some (many) blmlers seemed to play a bid of 1NT in this position as also > showing the other two suits. Have I misunderstood something? If not > what is the difference between the two bids? When does one double and > when does one call 1NT? > Some use 1NT as more distributional (55) or at least better ODR. Some differentiate according to relative length : double with at least longer C, 1NT with longer H, or the reverse. > Does this also apply after?: > > Pass 1 diamond pass 1 spade > > Why not ? From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 26 09:51:45 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:51:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] humble question In-Reply-To: <4B0DC5A6.3090301@aol.com> References: <4B0DC5A6.3090301@aol.com> Message-ID: <4B0E41A1.4020107@skynet.be> yes, I do play this system. 1NT is done on very weak hands, starting from 4-4. X is with more normal TO-doubles, starting from 5-4. even the two cue-bids are codified, as strong two-suiter and very strong two-suiter. Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > Warning: The following may be based on a misunderstanding (by me). > > I recall that some time ago a number of blmlers stated that after > (example) a bidding sequence of: > > 1 diamond pass 1 spade > > a double would show the other two suits. Standard practice. > > some (many) blmlers seemed to play a bid of 1NT in this position as also > showing the other two suits. Have I misunderstood something? If not > what is the difference between the two bids? When does one double and > when does one call 1NT? > > Does this also apply after?: > > Pass 1 diamond pass 1 spade > > JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 26 10:22:25 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:22:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 In-Reply-To: References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4B0D99B5.3020101@gmx.de> <000001ca6e1f$0a9292e0$1fb7b8a0$@no> Message-ID: <000001ca6e79$f7ae1680$e70a4380$@no> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran .................... > I see in my english version of the 2007 Laws I've written after L25B1 and L25B2 > "26 apply". I'm not sure when I did this, but presume I did so on a TD seminar at > Hell where Ton Kooijman was present. Probably yes, although I don't remember him mentioning this at Hell in April 2008. But your note made me search my files from the Hell meeting where I found a lecture by Ton on Law 26 (This lecture was subsequently to be presented at the EBL TDs seminar in Italy May 2008.) In this lecture he discusses the generality of Law 26 and also explicitly mentions that while L26 obviously applies in L25B2 situations it also applies in L25B1 situations. Case closed Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 26 04:04:54 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:04:54 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4B0D99B5.3020101@gmx.de> <000001ca6e1f$0a9292e0$1fb7b8a0$@no> Message-ID: <19D0738F9699470DA7F9D4E252EEBFA5@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25 & L26 OP raised the question related to Law 25B, and here we may have a problem: Before 2007 Law 25B specifically stated "without penalty" when the changed call was accepted, the corresponding clause "without further rectification" has been removed in the 2007 laws. It appears to me that even when LHO accepts the change of a call under law 25B Law 26 does indeed now apply on the retracted call. As this is a major change (that for instance I have been unaware of) I should like to have some confirmation that this change was really intended and not just an accident. +=+ I think perhaps I have not quite grasped Sven's point. Is he saying that when the 1997 law states that "the auction proceeds without penalty" this extends to the exclusion of penalties in the play? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 26 11:20:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:20:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] humble question References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4B0D99B5.3020101@gmx.de> <000001ca6e1f$0a9292e0$1fb7b8a0$@no> <19D0738F9699470DA7F9D4E252EEBFA5@Mildred> Message-ID: <000801ca6e88$924455c0$b6cd0140$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "a revolutionary moment in the world's > history is a time for revolutions, not for patching." > [Beveridge Report, 1942] "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:31 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L25 & L26 > > > > OP raised the question related to Law 25B, and here we may have a problem: > Before 2007 Law 25B specifically stated "without penalty" when the changed > call was accepted, the corresponding clause "without further rectification" > has been removed in the 2007 laws. > > It appears to me that even when LHO accepts the change of a call under law > 25B Law 26 does indeed now apply on the retracted call. > > As this is a major change (that for instance I have been unaware of) I > should like to have some confirmation that this change was really intended > and not just an accident. > > +=+ I think perhaps I have not quite grasped Sven's point. Is he saying > that when the 1997 law states that "the auction proceeds without penalty" > this extends to the exclusion of penalties in the play? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes, the way I understood Law 25B1 as far as Law 26 was concerned with the retracted (replaced) call. Regards Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 12:57:20 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:57:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 In-Reply-To: <000801ca6e88$924455c0$b6cd0140$@no> References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4B0D99B5.3020101@gmx.de> <000001ca6e1f$0a9292e0$1fb7b8a0$@no> <19D0738F9699470DA7F9D4E252EEBFA5@Mildred> <000801ca6e88$924455c0$b6cd0140$@no> Message-ID: 2009/11/26 Sven Pran : > On Behalf Of Grattan >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "a revolutionary moment in the world's >> history is a time for revolutions, not for patching." >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?[Beveridge Report, 1942] > "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sven Pran" >> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:31 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25 & L26 >> >> >> >> OP raised the question related to Law 25B, and here we may have a problem: >> Before 2007 Law 25B specifically stated "without penalty" when the changed >> call was accepted, the corresponding clause "without further > rectification" >> has been removed in the 2007 laws. >> >> It appears to me that even when LHO accepts the change of a call under law >> 25B Law 26 does indeed now apply on the retracted call. >> >> As this is a major change (that for instance I have been unaware of) I >> should like to have some confirmation that this change was really intended >> and not just an accident. >> >> +=+ I think perhaps I have not quite grasped Sven's point. Is he saying >> that when the 1997 law states that "the auction proceeds without penalty" >> this extends to the exclusion of penalties in the play? >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > > Yes, the way I understood Law 25B1 as far as Law 26 was concerned with the > retracted (replaced) call. But the "without penalty" clause was quite clearly for the aution only. Else the play period would have been mentioned (or the reference to the auction abolished). > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Nov 26 13:13:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:13:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4B0D99B5.3020101@gmx.de> <000001ca6e1f$0a9292e0$1fb7b8a0$@no><19D0738F9699470DA7F9D4E252EEBFA5@Mildred> <000801ca6e88$924455c0$b6cd0140$@no> Message-ID: <239FF6C9867948C197349C8B94B66A48@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25 & L26 >> >> As this is a major change (that for instance I have been unaware of) I >> should like to have some confirmation that this change was really >> intended >> and not just an accident. >> >> +=+ I think perhaps I have not quite grasped Sven's point. Is he saying >> that when the 1997 law states that "the auction proceeds without penalty" >> this extends to the exclusion of penalties in the play? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Yes, the way I understood Law 25B1 as far as Law 26 was concerned with the > retracted (replaced) call. > > Regards Sven > +=+ Interesting. No longer of consequence since the 1997 laws have been succeeded by the 2007 code, but we did have an extensive exchange of opinions intra-committee on laws 25, 26, and, browsing through the voluminous emails, I do not pick up the least suggestion that anyone thought we were changing the effect of the law in this respect. The 1997 law refers to 'auction' and makes no reference to play until we arrive at Law 25B2(c). Law 26 is so explicit in its application that an explicit exclusion was needed, not an inferred exclusion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Nov 26 15:07:09 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:07:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Has he station? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B0E8B8D.6060200@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan Endicott] I am shocked to read that "This inference has regularly been exploited in my partnerships. As Nigel states it, opponents will often reopen and partner will be glad to cut their head off.". There is not the least doubt but that opponents are entitled to be forewarned of this; it constitutes information to which Law 40B6(b) applies. I fail to see what means of disclosure is available for such an item other than a mention on the system card. [Nigel] Not that it matters much: I didn't really write that :( but I suppose it's near enough :) Playing with a competent stranger, for the first time, I doubt whether you would have the time to state such undiscussed inferences on your system-card. When the sequence arose at the table, a practical way to comply with Grattan's advice, might be to show your opponent the 1N card from the bidding box (assuming that the scores for 1N are written on the back). Thus, a "matter generally known to bridge players" is that, at match-pointed pairs, love-all, the side that gets to play in 1N undoubled is likely to get a good score whether they make it or not. It is opponents who should do their best to disturb your 1N contract. Hence when partner removes your 1N to two of a minor, he usually has some hope of game. Note: I said before and I say again: *usually*. From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Thu Nov 26 18:05:59 2009 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:05:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] humble question In-Reply-To: <4B0E41A1.4020107@skynet.be> References: <4B0DC5A6.3090301@aol.com> <4B0E41A1.4020107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001ca6eba$ba74f540$2f5edfc0$@com> On 1D - P - 1S - ? I do play the same approach as Herman for 1NT and X, but the SAYC Standard, on this side of the pound, is to play 2S as natural. I also play 2D as natural. IMHO, bidding good suits seems more useful (for leads and competitive action) and more frequent than describing strong two-suiters. Laval Du Breuil Quebec ________________________________________________ Herman writes: yes, I do play this system. 1NT is done on very weak hands, starting from 4-4. X is with more normal TO-doubles, starting from 5-4. even the two cue-bids are codified, as strong two-suiter and very strong two-suiter. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 26 18:19:23 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:19:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L25 & L26 In-Reply-To: <239FF6C9867948C197349C8B94B66A48@Mildred> References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <4B0D99B5.3020101@gmx.de> <000001ca6e1f$0a9292e0$1fb7b8a0$@no><19D0738F9699470DA7F9D4E252EEBFA5@Mildred> <000801ca6e88$924455c0$b6cd0140$@no> <239FF6C9867948C197349C8B94B66A48@Mildred> Message-ID: <000901ca6ebc$999ef940$ccdcebc0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan ......... > >> +=+ I think perhaps I have not quite grasped Sven's point. Is he saying > >> that when the 1997 law states that "the auction proceeds without penalty" > >> this extends to the exclusion of penalties in the play? > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Yes, the way I understood Law 25B1 as far as Law 26 was concerned with the > > retracted (replaced) call. > > > > Regards Sven > > > +=+ Interesting. No longer of consequence since the 1997 laws > have been succeeded by the 2007 code, but we did have an > extensive exchange of opinions intra-committee on laws 25, > 26, and, browsing through the voluminous emails, I do not pick > up the least suggestion that anyone thought we were changing > the effect of the law in this respect. The 1997 law refers to > 'auction' and makes no reference to play until we arrive at > Law 25B2(c). Law 26 is so explicit in its application that an > explicit exclusion was needed, not an inferred exclusion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Glad then that I never during my nearly 30 years as director have had any ruling where this mattered 8-)) (I must add that the explicit references to L26 only from L25B2 and the EBL commentary from 1992 strengthened my belief that Law 26 only applied when the substituting call was not accepted - see commentary 25.11) Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 26 23:00:29 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:00:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Has he station? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B0E8B8D.6060200@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Thus, a "matter generally known to bridge players" is that, at >match-pointed pairs, love-all, the side that gets to play in 1N >undoubled is likely to get a good score whether they make it or not. > >It is opponents who should do their best to disturb your 1N contract. >Hence when partner removes your 1N to two of a minor, he usually has >some hope of game. Note: I said before and I say again: *usually*. Richard Hills: Not known to me. +90 is a poor matchpoint score when a score of +110 is available. +120 is a poor matchpoint score when a score of +130 is available. And +110 is better than -50; in World Champion Kit Woolsey's magisterial tome "Matchpoints" he advised that a sensible minor-suit partscore was, on average, better than a risky 1NT partscore. Monty Python's "Bookshop" sketch, slightly modified: Customer: Can you help me with "Matchppoints"? Owner: Ah yes, Woolsey. Customer No. Owner: I beg your pardon? Customer: No, Nigel Guthrie Owner: I think you'll find that Kit Woolsey wrote "Matchpoints". Customer: No, no. Woolsey wrote "Matchpoints" with one P. This is "Matchppoints" with two Ps by Nigel Guthrie. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 27 04:18:41 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:18:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Has he station? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ABC News, "Starving trolls is key to internet harmony" http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/26/2754284.htm [snip] >Reformed troll 'Mozart's Ghost' says many people get into >trolling for the "thrill" of it. "You suss out what bothers >particular users, get to know them and their weaknesses and >play on them," he told ABC News Online. [snip] >Ironically, Mozart's Ghost is now "on the forces of good" and >runs and internet forum. He says the best way to make a troll >go away is to simply ignore them. "You can hardly go back into >a thread and post if the last post is yours," he said. [snip] Richard Hills: The last post on this thread was mine, and upon later mature reflection my attempt at humour now seems to be a trollish playing on the analytical weaknesses of Nigel Guthrie vis-a-vis the analytical strengths of World Champion Kit Woolsey. My apologies to Nigel; I should have opted for self-deprecating humour instead, for example -> Monty Python's "Bookshop" sketch, slightly modified and revised: Customer: Can you help me with "Symmmetric Relay"? Owner: Ah yes, by Kiwi expert Professor Roy Kerr. Customer No. Owner: I beg your pardon? Customer: No, by Richard Hills. Owner: I think you'll find that Professor Roy Kerr wrote "Symmetric Relay". Customer: No, no. Kerr wrote "Symmetric Relay" with two Ms. This is "Symmmetric Relay" with three Ms by Richard Hills (system notes emailed on request). ABC News online responding posts to "trolls" story -> "Sally": >Forums have to be moderated to be usable. A Yahoo forum I used >to belong to was overtaken by troll activity to the point where >it was almost unusable. > >Earlier this year, I was furious about something someone had >said here on the ABC online website, and posted a vehement >reply. The tone and language used in my response wasn't >acceptable (I could see in hindsight) and the comment didn't >make it through the moderator. I think it was a good call by >the moderator not to publish it, and not censorship at all. "urban reality": >everything in moderation - including moderation itself > >but on another side, I have learned to totally ignore dominant >and frequent posters - their views do become predictable and >very much repeated, balance is important and encouraging >diversity of post and response is of value to me Richard Hills, predictable repeat of earlier post: >>Disagree. Richard Hills, predictable amplification of earlier post: ...because all the necessary Lawful authority that a Director and/or Disciplinary Committee needs is contained in Law 73C: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 27 05:43:17 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:43:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1D7724880C124B278BAA2F023EBA801E@Mildred> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst, 14th September 2006: I enjoyed this one. LOL passes AJT Axxx Jxx Axx in first, and competes to 3H which famous lady international (married to well known grumpy bulletin writer and international) expresses contempt for. When dummy hits she calls in the NYPD. "Why did you pass 14 High?" I ask. "9 losers" says LOL, counting them for my benefit. "WTFP?" says I to FLI. "Will you record it?" says she. "Why? you've heard the lady's explanation" says I. I was amused that some FLI players have no idea that there exist players who are perpetual beginners. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Nov 27 10:16:29 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:16:29 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Has he station? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B0E8B8D.6060200@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B0E8B8D.6060200@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On 26 Nov 2009, at 14:07, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > Hence when partner removes your 1N to two of a minor, he usually has > some hope of game. Note: I said before and I say again: *usually*. I said before, and I say again, "not in my experience". I note also that although in your poll in another place trying to gain support for your view there are many who would raise to 3D, there is not a single response that agrees that removing 1NT shows extras. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091127/bf6cb398/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 27 10:25:49 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:25:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <80526C5800DD45C6BD647F8603292D88@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 4:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > John (MadDog) Probst, 14th September 2006: > > I enjoyed this one. LOL passes AJT Axxx Jxx Axx in first, and competes to > 3H which famous lady international (married to well known grumpy bulletin > writer and international) expresses contempt for. When dummy hits she > calls in the NYPD. "Why did you pass 14 High?" I ask. "9 losers" says > LOL, counting them for my benefit. "WTFP?" says I to FLI. "Will you > record it?" says she. "Why? you've heard the lady's explanation" says I. > > I was amused that some FLI players have no idea that there exist players > who are perpetual beginners. > +=+ Which of the two ladies do you refer to as the perpetual beginner? +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 27 10:33:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:33:26 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Has he station? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4B0E8B8D.6060200@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <9AABCCB787F44B3186A93AE1A189FD4A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <4B0E8B8D.6060200@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B0FCF03.2030909@yahoo.co.uk> [Nige1] Hence when partner removes your 1N to two of a minor, he usually has some hope of game. Note: I said before and I say again: *usually*. [Gordon Rainsford] I said before, and I say again, "not in my experience". I note also that although in your poll in another place trying to gain support for your view there are many who would raise to 3D, there is not a single response that agrees that removing 1NT shows extras. [Nige2] I admitted I am wrong and Grattan is right. I included a link to the BBO poll that I started. I grovelled there and here *before* Gordon and Richard decided to rub my nose in it. Perhaps, however, they provide me with the excuse for few Parthian shots: [1] Several of the replies to my BBO post, said 2D showed extra *length*. IMO *shape* is a kind of *value*. Naturally, I agree that *shape* is different from *high card strength*. (I can't forget the interminable BLML threads where I was the lone dissenter from the practice of declaring a 1N range of, say, 15-17 HCP, although you sometimes open with 14 HCP and extra shape). (2) One expert who agrees with Gordon that 2D doesn't show extra *strength* gave examples of 2D rebids -- all but one with extra *values* - well above a minimum opening bid. (3) Some of the 1N responders tried for game opposite the 2D rebid even although they felt they were in the *lower range* for their initial 1N reply. Nevertheless, of course, I still accept that I'm wrong in my contention that as a matter of general bridge knowledge: love all at pairs, removing a 1N response to 2D usually shows extra values. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Nov 27 14:19:29 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (GORDON RAINSFORD) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:19:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Has he station? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4B0FCF03.2030909@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B0E8B8D.6060200@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0FCF03.2030909@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <652480.77120.qm@web86701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > [Nige2] > I admitted I am wrong and Grattan is right. I included a link to the BBO > poll that I started. I grovelled there and here *before* Gordon and > Richard decided to rub my nose in it. Sorry Nigel. There was no intention to rub you nose in it, but I haven't seen (and can't find now in the archive) any such post with a link. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 27 15:34:33 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:34:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] humble question In-Reply-To: <4B0DC5A6.3090301@aol.com> References: <4B0DC5A6.3090301@aol.com> Message-ID: <4560BDDE-E6C1-4620-988C-25A20B862E71@starpower.net> On Nov 25, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Warning: The following may be based on a misunderstanding (by me). > > I recall that some time ago a number of blmlers stated that after > (example) a bidding sequence of: > > 1 diamond pass 1 spade > > a double would show the other two suits. Standard practice. > > some (many) blmlers seemed to play a bid of 1NT in this position as > also > showing the other two suits. Have I misunderstood something? If not > what is the difference between the two bids? When does one double and > when does one call 1NT? Double shows the usual, a value-based takeout, and encourages partner to compete constructively. 1NT shows a weaker, more distributional hand, and encourages partner to take pre-emptive action. Its primary advantage comes from bidding 1NT with bad hands that might otherwise bid 2NT (or might not, for fear of the three-level), allowing 2NT to be reserved for two-suiters that have enough high-card strength to suggest competing for a make. (My standard when I play this agreement is that 2NT here shows "a hand that would have opened the bidding in first seat".) > Does this also apply after?: > > Pass 1 diamond pass 1 spade Agreements differ. Around here, usually yes. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 27 16:04:59 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:04:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Has he station? In-Reply-To: <4B0E8B8D.6060200@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4B0E8B8D.6060200@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Playing with a competent stranger, for the first time, I doubt whether > you would have the time to state such undiscussed inferences on your > system-card. > > When the sequence arose at the table, a practical way to comply with > Grattan's advice, might be to show your opponent the 1N card from the > bidding box (assuming that the scores for 1N are written on the back). > > Thus, a "matter generally known to bridge players" is that, at > match-pointed pairs, love-all, the side that gets to play in 1N > undoubled is likely to get a good score whether they make it or not. > > It is opponents who should do their best to disturb your 1N contract. > Hence when partner removes your 1N to two of a minor, he usually has > some hope of game. Note: I said before and I say again: *usually*. That would be an aberrant inference in ACBL-land, where the auction 1D-P-1NT-P-2D normally means that opener thinks 1NT will likely go down and 2D will probably make, typically based on a long diamond suit providing sufficient distributional playing strengh to compensate for minimal high-card strength, and, as such, would imply the lack of "some hope of game". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Nov 27 19:17:28 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:17:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Has he station? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <652480.77120.qm@web86701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <4B0E8B8D.6060200@yahoo.co.uk> <4B0FCF03.2030909@yahoo.co.uk> <652480.77120.qm@web86701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B1017B8.5020604@yahoo.co.uk> [Nige2] I admitted I am wrong and Grattan is right. I included a link to the BBO poll that I started. I grovelled there and here *before* Gordon and Richard decided to rub my nose in it. [Gordon Rainsford] Sorry Nigel. There was no intention to rub you nose in it, but I haven't seen (and can't find now in the archive) any such post with a link. [Nige3] Sorry Gordon. I malign you. Here is a copy of the email I thought I'd sent (26/11/2009 16:02) but have just found in my "unsent" folder :( [Nige2] IMO, the removal of 1N to 2D non-vul at pairs logically usually shows extra values. And this fact is inherent in the structure of the game. Reluctantly, however, I must confess that Grattan is right (again) that it is *not* "a matter generally known to bridge players". You may confirm from this from the BBO topic: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=35649 From harsanyi at t-online.de Sun Nov 29 14:43:11 2009 From: harsanyi at t-online.de (Josef Harsanyi) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:43:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mixed score arithmetic In-Reply-To: <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003701ca70f9$e490c160$adb24420$@de> Dear BLML Community, please help me to find the best methods to rule in this simple UI-case. Question one: What is your estimation for the percentual distribution opening lead from West against 4s contract from: 932 109762 J95 K6 The bidding was: 1h p 1s p 2c p 2d p 3s p 4s all pass Dummy will have 3s, 5h and 4+c . The 2c was natural and non forcing. S x: % H x: % D x: % C K: % ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Question two : The TD was called after the play by declarer, who claimed against E-W, because before the closing pass, East asked for the meaning of the 2c (was it F, or nf) and West later attacked with the cK. The complete deal: K65 AKQ84 K 984 932 J7 109762 53 J95 Q10742 K6 AJ103 AQ1084 J A863 984 The result was after ck opening lead: 420, after other attack could be: either 450 or 480. What is your decision as TD? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Question three: The TD decided to change the score from 420 to 480. E-W protest. You are the appeals committee. You know, that about 60 % of the players with similar strength did attack cK, the rest with s x. Do you change the decision of the TD, or not? If you create a mixed score, how do you calculate (estimate) ((rule)) the partition of score elements at other cases, when the UI was given (perhaps a resolution-factor would be suitable for the received UI), and the probability of the two opening lead-alternatives vary between 90-10 and 10-90? Which composition would you prefer to the different opening lead probabilities? Do you let correlate your score with the frequencies of opening leads of other tables from the score sheet? If yes, then how? Sore AC-decision cK other 420 450 480 90 10 . . . % 80 20 . . . % 70 30 . . . % 60 40 . . . % 50 50 . . . % 40 60 . . . % 30 70 . . . % 20 80 . . . % Thanks for your contributions in advance. Best regards Josef From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 29 23:46:18 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:46:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mixed score arithmetic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003701ca70f9$e490c160$adb24420$@de> Message-ID: 1) Due to a reference to the "frequencies of opening leads at other tables", it seems that the type of scoring is matchpoint pairs. At imps scoring the opening lead of the king of clubs is very attractive. But even at matchpoints, without any UI, my personal choice would always be the king of clubs. So Jeff Rubens, in a mini-debate with Edgar Kaplan some years ago (via duelling footnotes to an MSC problem), argued that not choosing your personal choice would be being masochistically influenced by UI. The Rubens analysis had some distinguished support under the ambiguous 1997 Lawbook, including the support of the Chief Director of New Zealand. However, the Kiwi / Rubens interpretation was exploded by the new definition of Logical Alternative in the new 2007 Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.' Note that the Law says "among the class of players in question" NOT "for the particular player in question". So it is irrelevant whether Rubens or myself or the player on lead at the table would "always" choose the king of clubs. What is relevant is whether a "significant proportion" of others belonging to the class of player on lead at the table would give "serious consideration" to a non-CK lead, and "some might select it" in the absence of the UI demonstrably suggesting a club lead. And a poll of the actual opening leader's peers showed 40% support for a non-CK lead, so obviously a less successful opening lead was indeed a Logical Alternative. 2) K65 AKQ84 K Q752 932 J7 T9762 53 J95 QT742 K6 AJT3 AQT84 J A863 984 After a non-club lead, 12 tricks for +480 is possible. But the line of play required is so double-dummy and anti-percentage that as TD I would award a score of 11 tricks for +450. 3) Under Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Partner) the lead of the club king was unLawful, so a result deriving from a club king opening lead must not be included in the weightings of any subsequent rectifying score. Law 12C1(c) weightings are merely judgements on the likelihood of various outcomes If The Law 16B Infraction Had Never Happened. As TD and AC my judgement is to give a 100% weighting to +450 and a 0% weighting to +480. The table TD's judgement was to give a 0% weighting to +450 and a 100% weighting to +480. The table AC's judgement might have been to give a 50% weighting to +450 and a 50% weighting to +480. All of these rulings are Lawful rulings, differing merely in judgement. But, since East was foolish enough to choose a Ruritanian Asking Bid in clubs, West was constrained in their choice amongst Logical Alternatives. Therefore any ruling containing any weighting of +420 is unLawful. Note: Frequencies of scores from other tables Should Never-Ever Be Used When Calculating A Law 12 Adjusted Score. Different players, different systems, different auctions. For example -> NORTH SOUTH Rubens Hills 1H 1S 2S (1) 3D (2) 4S Pass Opening lead: Club King (3) (1) Rubens' style is to immediately raise pard's major suit with 3 cards. (2) Hills' style is to win the post-mortem with a long suit trial bid. (3) On this auction clubs is the only unbid suit, so an automatic lead. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Nov 30 01:41:25 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:41:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mixed score arithmetic [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills writes: > Note: Frequencies of scores from other tables Should Never-Ever Be Used > When Calculating A Law 12 Adjusted Score. Different players, different > systems, different auctions. I would agree, with a caveat: scores at other tables may be used if the players involved are contacted, using the actions at other tables to serve as a poll. In Washington non-NABC+ case seven, declarer misinformed the opponents and received a favorable diamond lead against 3NT, making 11 tricks. With correct play, he can make 11 tricks in 3NT even on a normal spade lead. 18 players played the hand in 3NT, and 11 of 18 made 11 tricks. The panel asked six of the seven who did not make 11 tricks what their line of play had been, and four of six misplayed the hand after a spade lead. This was sufficient evidence that 3NT making only 10 tricks would be likely for the player's peers, defined as the other players in the final of this event. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 30 03:17:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:17:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Cloudy with a chance of meatballs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner, 9th October 2006: [snip] >This remembers me of one "code" I use with my favourite partner, and >after reading all this, I wonder whether we may do so. > >When arriving at the table, one of us might say "cloudy table". This may >be translated as "they're even more crazy as we are, so let's bid >quietly". Of course, opps often ask what it means, and we explain it. >Sometimes we explain it spontaneously. They usually laugh, but don't >realize we're in earnest. > >How would you all classify this item of information ? Richard Hills, 30th November 2009: If not explained (or explained in such a way that the opponents incorrectly believe that it is merely a joke, rather than also being an actual change of partnership methods) then this is clearly an infraction of Law 40A1(b). And if a regulation of the Tournament Organizer and/or Regulating Authority prohibits an unauthorised(1) change of partnership methods during a session, then this is clearly an infraction of Law 40B4. (1) Many TOs and/or RAs have a sensible regulation authorising a TD to require a partnership to switch, during a session, to simple methods after they have irritated their opponents by mishandling their home- grown complex methods. Alain Gottcheiner, 9th October 2006: >Ah, yes, why "cloudy" ? Because some of our preempts and overcalls are >rather lax. Those are indicated, in our notes, by an asterisk. Now, when >it's cloudy, stars are out :-)) Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 30 06:03:33 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:03:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Cloudy with a chance of meatballs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >...When arriving at the table, one of us might say "cloudy table". >This may be translated as "they're even more crazy as we are"... Richard Hills: Imps Dlr: South Vul: East-West <<<=== hint, hint :-) You, North, hold: 62 A AQJ52 KJ542 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1S Pass 2D Pass 3D 4H 5D Pass Pass 5H ? What meatcall do you make? What other meatcalls do you consider making? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 30 09:23:16 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:23:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mixed score arithmetic In-Reply-To: <003701ca70f9$e490c160$adb24420$@de> References: <699BD0C8-BD31-4DF0-93AA-88E54902E27A@btinternet.com> <1NDMrC-1MhKz20@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <003701ca70f9$e490c160$adb24420$@de> Message-ID: <4B1380F4.6090501@skynet.be> Josef Harsanyi wrote: > Dear BLML Community, > > please help me to find the best methods to rule in this simple UI-case. > Question one: > > What is your estimation for the percentual distribution opening lead from > West against 4s contract from: > 932 > 109762 > J95 > K6 > > The bidding was: > > 1h p 1s p > 2c p 2d p > 3s p 4s all pass > > Dummy will have 3s, 5h and 4+c . The 2c was natural and non forcing. > > S x: % > H x: % > D x: % > C K: % I'm a notoriously poor opening leader, so I won't comment. Not the Club King, though. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Question two : > > The TD was called after the play by declarer, who claimed against E-W, > because before the closing pass, East asked for the meaning of the 2c (was > it F, or nf) and West later attacked with the cK. Seems like a clear infraction to me. > The complete deal: > > K65 > AKQ84 > K > 984 > 932 J7 > 109762 53 > J95 Q10742 > K6 AJ103 > AQ1084 > J > A863 > 984 > The result was after ck opening lead: 420, after other attack could be: > either 450 or 480. > What is your decision as TD? change the score to some combination of 450 and 480. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Question three: > > The TD decided to change the score from 420 to 480. seems OK. > E-W protest. I hope they bring good arguments. Do they want 420 back or just some proportion of 450? > You are the > appeals committee. > You know, that about 60 % of the players with similar strength did attack > cK, the rest with s x. Do you change the decision of the TD, or not? > No, 60% is not enough, there are still LA. East should not have asked questions at that particular time. > If you create a mixed score, how do you calculate (estimate) ((rule)) the > partition of score elements at other cases, when the UI was given (perhaps a > resolution-factor would be suitable for the received UI), and the > probability of the two opening lead-alternatives vary between 90-10 and > 10-90? > Which composition would you prefer to the different opening lead > probabilities? Do you let correlate your score with the frequencies of > opening leads of other tables from the score sheet? If yes, then how? > > Sore AC-decision > cK other 420 450 480 > 90 10 . . . % I might allow 420 in that case. > 80 20 . . . % maybe even in this one, if West gives a good explanation for his lead. > 70 30 . . . % probably not here any more. > 60 40 . . . % > 50 50 . . . % > 40 60 . . . % > 30 70 . . . % > 20 80 . . . % > certainly not here. > Thanks for your contributions in advance. It would be logical to simply award the relative frequencies of 450 and 480 around the room. > Best regards > Josef > Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 30 13:13:38 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:13:38 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. Message-ID: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> Message-ID: <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: I am not so sure that this message from Grattan is a useful contribution to any discussion about the application or interpretation of the bridge laws. Suggesting that the WBF Appeals committee supports his view seems wrong to me. At one moment some people having to deal with an appeal in the last world championships acted as described but whether this should be considered an official view by any body is questionable if not negative. As far as I know the chief TD of the WBF does not agree, nor do some members of the wbf lc and its chairman. So it might be better to forget this message from Grattan up till the moment that confirmation from some authority is given, which I doubt will happen. To give only one argument not to support Grattan's view is that we invite players to abuse the laws with such approach. You will get at least part of your slam, isn't it? ton In the topic entitled 'Mixed Score Arithmetic', where UI in the auction suggested a club opening lead, Richard Hills stated: " Under Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Partner) the lead of the club king was unlawful, so a result deriving from a club king opening lead must not be included in the weightings of any subsequent rectifying score. Law 12C1(c) weightings are merely judgements on the likelihood of various outcomes If The Law 16B Infraction Had Never Happened." < +=+ This position is adopted by some regulating authorities. When the question was last discussed by the WBF Appeals Committee a different view prevailed.. In Maastricht, 2000, I was seeking to persuade the appeals committee of the merits of weighted adjustments. Eventually the committee consented to adopt the method subject to a condition allowing inclusion of a proportion of the score that was the outcome of the infraction if it were judged a proportion of players of like standard would make that call in an untroubled auction. So if 30 in 100 such players would make the call the outcome should be entered as to 30% in the weighting. It was considered that if the objective of weighting is equity, not punishment, equity calls for its inclusion. For a punitive award the Director should turn to Law 90. (Apart from words in the Introduction to the 2007 laws, there is also a Laws Committee minute on this point - meeting of 20th January 2000, item 12.) Law 16B1 says it is an infraction, having received from partner unauthorized information ('UI'), to choose from among logical alternatives an action that could be suggested over another by the UI. Law 16B3 says that if a player violates this law and gains an advantage from doing so, the Director shall assign an adjusted score. When the Director wishes to know how to do this Law 16B3 tells him to follow the procedure in Law 12C. Law 12C1 inclusive of 12C1(c) gives him the powers. Law 12 imposes no limitations on the Director in his assessment. There is no statement to exclude allowing a proportion of the outcome of the infractive action where this is considered to be equitable. The belief that it is contrary to law to do so is not supported by the text of the laws. A policy of not doing so has developed in some constituencies and we should not oppose the principle in general, but where equity calls for it such a policy can be set aside and there is no breach of the written law in this. Be it noted that damage lies in the difference between the balance of all probabilities of outcome in a smooth auction and the degree to which an infraction causes the balance to be distorted adversely against the non-offending side. The specific question has never been discussed in the WBFLC (which interprets the wording of the Law while the application of the law so interpreted to rulings and appeals is a matter for the WBF Appeals Committee.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 30 16:47:13 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:47:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4B13E901.1080908@skynet.be> I am personally very glad that Ton wrote this message. I concur completely with Ton in this matter. It is simply wrong to give part of a result that cannot be attained at all, when following the laws to the letter. Thanks Ton, for clarifying this. Herman. ton wrote: > ton: > I am not so sure that this message from Grattan is a useful contribution to > any discussion about the application or interpretation of the bridge laws. > Suggesting that the WBF Appeals committee supports his view seems wrong to > me. > At one moment some people having to deal with an appeal in the last world > championships acted as described but whether this should be considered an > official view by any body is questionable if not negative. > As far as I know the chief TD of the WBF does not agree, nor do some members > of the wbf lc and its chairman. > So it might be better to forget this message from Grattan up till the moment > that confirmation from some authority is given, which I doubt will happen. > > To give only one argument not to support Grattan's view is that we invite > players to abuse the laws with such approach. You will get at least part of > your slam, isn't it? > > > ton > > > > > In the topic entitled 'Mixed Score Arithmetic', where UI in > the auction suggested a club opening lead, Richard Hills > stated: > " Under Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Partner) > the lead of the club king was unlawful, so a result deriving > from a club king opening lead must not be included in the > weightings of any subsequent rectifying score. Law 12C1(c) > weightings are merely judgements on the likelihood of various > outcomes If The Law 16B Infraction Had Never Happened." > < > +=+ This position is adopted by some regulating authorities. > When the question was last discussed by the WBF Appeals > Committee a different view prevailed.. > > In Maastricht, 2000, I was seeking to persuade the appeals > committee of the merits of weighted adjustments. Eventually > the committee consented to adopt the method subject to a > condition allowing inclusion of a proportion of the score that > was the outcome of the infraction if it were judged a proportion > of players of like standard would make that call in an untroubled > auction. So if 30 in 100 such players would make the call the > outcome should be entered as to 30% in the weighting. It was > considered that if the objective of weighting is equity, not > punishment, equity calls for its inclusion. For a punitive award > the Director should turn to Law 90. (Apart from words in the > Introduction to the 2007 laws, there is also a Laws Committee > minute on this point - meeting of 20th January 2000, item 12.) > > Law 16B1 says it is an infraction, having received from partner > unauthorized information ('UI'), to choose from among logical > alternatives an action that could be suggested over another by > the UI. Law 16B3 says that if a player violates this law and gains > an advantage from doing so, the Director shall assign an adjusted > score. When the Director wishes to know how to do this Law > 16B3 tells him to follow the procedure in Law 12C. > > Law 12C1 inclusive of 12C1(c) gives him the powers. Law 12 > imposes no limitations on the Director in his assessment. There is > no statement to exclude allowing a proportion of the outcome of > the infractive action where this is considered to be equitable. The > belief that it is contrary to law to do so is not supported by the > text of the laws. A policy of not doing so has developed in some > constituencies and we should not oppose the principle in general, > but where equity calls for it such a policy can be set aside and > there is no breach of the written law in this. > > Be it noted that damage lies in the difference between the balance > of all probabilities of outcome in a smooth auction and the degree > to which an infraction causes the balance to be distorted adversely > against the non-offending side. > > The specific question has never been discussed in the WBFLC > (which interprets the wording of the Law while the application of > the law so interpreted to rulings and appeals is a matter for the > WBF Appeals Committee.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > . > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 30 17:10:00 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:10:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <4B13E901.1080908@skynet.be> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B13E901.1080908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001c01ca71d7$91cfc320$b56f4960$@nl> Although I agree mostly with this I want to make it clear that I still think in a bit round-about way the result can come back. Suppose a player has a choice between calls A,B and C. UI suggest C, so he is not allowed to bid it. His free choices are A and B. Suppose he chooses A. Now the bidding is live again. Eventually the contract reached is the same as one that could be reached through his choice of C. If this is legal then I think that the result of the illegal choice of C can be included in the weighted score, not because his call of C is weighed at more than 0%, but because the same result could be achieved in a legal way. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: maandag 30 november 2009 16:47 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. I am personally very glad that Ton wrote this message. I concur completely with Ton in this matter. It is simply wrong to give part of a result that cannot be attained at all, when following the laws to the letter. Thanks Ton, for clarifying this. Herman. ton wrote: > ton: > I am not so sure that this message from Grattan is a useful contribution to > any discussion about the application or interpretation of the bridge laws. > Suggesting that the WBF Appeals committee supports his view seems wrong to > me. > At one moment some people having to deal with an appeal in the last world > championships acted as described but whether this should be considered an > official view by any body is questionable if not negative. > As far as I know the chief TD of the WBF does not agree, nor do some members > of the wbf lc and its chairman. > So it might be better to forget this message from Grattan up till the moment > that confirmation from some authority is given, which I doubt will happen. > > To give only one argument not to support Grattan's view is that we invite > players to abuse the laws with such approach. You will get at least part of > your slam, isn't it? > > > ton > > > > > In the topic entitled 'Mixed Score Arithmetic', where UI in > the auction suggested a club opening lead, Richard Hills > stated: > " Under Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Partner) > the lead of the club king was unlawful, so a result deriving > from a club king opening lead must not be included in the > weightings of any subsequent rectifying score. Law 12C1(c) > weightings are merely judgements on the likelihood of various > outcomes If The Law 16B Infraction Had Never Happened." > < > +=+ This position is adopted by some regulating authorities. > When the question was last discussed by the WBF Appeals > Committee a different view prevailed.. > > In Maastricht, 2000, I was seeking to persuade the appeals > committee of the merits of weighted adjustments. Eventually > the committee consented to adopt the method subject to a > condition allowing inclusion of a proportion of the score that > was the outcome of the infraction if it were judged a proportion > of players of like standard would make that call in an untroubled > auction. So if 30 in 100 such players would make the call the > outcome should be entered as to 30% in the weighting. It was > considered that if the objective of weighting is equity, not > punishment, equity calls for its inclusion. For a punitive award > the Director should turn to Law 90. (Apart from words in the > Introduction to the 2007 laws, there is also a Laws Committee > minute on this point - meeting of 20th January 2000, item 12.) > > Law 16B1 says it is an infraction, having received from partner > unauthorized information ('UI'), to choose from among logical > alternatives an action that could be suggested over another by > the UI. Law 16B3 says that if a player violates this law and gains > an advantage from doing so, the Director shall assign an adjusted > score. When the Director wishes to know how to do this Law > 16B3 tells him to follow the procedure in Law 12C. > > Law 12C1 inclusive of 12C1(c) gives him the powers. Law 12 > imposes no limitations on the Director in his assessment. There is > no statement to exclude allowing a proportion of the outcome of > the infractive action where this is considered to be equitable. The > belief that it is contrary to law to do so is not supported by the > text of the laws. A policy of not doing so has developed in some > constituencies and we should not oppose the principle in general, > but where equity calls for it such a policy can be set aside and > there is no breach of the written law in this. > > Be it noted that damage lies in the difference between the balance > of all probabilities of outcome in a smooth auction and the degree > to which an infraction causes the balance to be distorted adversely > against the non-offending side. > > The specific question has never been discussed in the WBFLC > (which interprets the wording of the Law while the application of > the law so interpreted to rulings and appeals is a matter for the > WBF Appeals Committee.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > . > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 30 17:26:34 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:26:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <001c01ca71d7$91cfc320$b56f4960$@nl> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B13E901.1080908@skynet.be> <001c01ca71d7$91cfc320$b56f4960$@nl> Message-ID: <4B13F23A.40706@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > Although I agree mostly with this I want to make it clear that I still think > in a bit round-about way the result can come back. > > Suppose a player has a choice between calls A,B and C. UI suggest C, so he > is not allowed to bid it. His free choices are A and B. Suppose he chooses > A. Now the bidding is live again. Eventually the contract reached is the > same as one that could be reached through his choice of C. > > If this is legal then I think that the result of the illegal choice of C can > be included in the weighted score, not because his call of C is weighed at > more than 0%, but because the same result could be achieved in a legal way. > AG : I'm lost. In that case it isn't the result of choice C that's included, but the result of choiice A, and the fact that it's the same one is irrelevant. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 30 17:34:36 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:34:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <8D987AB260994033B9C78E4FDCC0444D@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. > ton: > I am not so sure that this message from Grattan is a useful contribution > to > any discussion about the application or interpretation of the bridge laws. > Suggesting that the WBF Appeals committee supports his view seems wrong to > me. > At one moment some people having to deal with an appeal in the last world > championships acted as described but whether this should be considered an > official view by any body is questionable if not negative. > As far as I know the chief TD of the WBF does not agree, nor do some > members > of the wbf lc and its chairman. > So it might be better to forget this message from Grattan up till the > moment > that confirmation from some authority is given, which I doubt will happen. > > To give only one argument not to support Grattan's view is that we invite > players to abuse the laws with such approach. You will get at least part > of > your slam, isn't it? > > > ton > > > > > In the topic entitled 'Mixed Score Arithmetic', where UI in > the auction suggested a club opening lead, Richard Hills > stated: > " Under Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Partner) > the lead of the club king was unlawful, so a result deriving > from a club king opening lead must not be included in the > weightings of any subsequent rectifying score. Law 12C1(c) > weightings are merely judgements on the likelihood of various > outcomes If The Law 16B Infraction Had Never Happened." > < > +=+ This position is adopted by some regulating authorities. > When the question was last discussed by the WBF Appeals > Committee a different view prevailed.. > > In Maastricht, 2000, I was seeking to persuade the appeals > committee of the merits of weighted adjustments. Eventually > the committee consented to adopt the method subject to a > condition allowing inclusion of a proportion of the score that > was the outcome of the infraction if it were judged a proportion > of players of like standard would make that call in an untroubled > auction. So if 30 in 100 such players would make the call the > outcome should be entered as to 30% in the weighting. It was > considered that if the objective of weighting is equity, not > punishment, equity calls for its inclusion. For a punitive award > the Director should turn to Law 90. (Apart from words in the > Introduction to the 2007 laws, there is also a Laws Committee > minute on this point - meeting of 20th January 2000, item 12.) > > Law 16B1 says it is an infraction, having received from partner > unauthorized information ('UI'), to choose from among logical > alternatives an action that could be suggested over another by > the UI. Law 16B3 says that if a player violates this law and gains > an advantage from doing so, the Director shall assign an adjusted > score. When the Director wishes to know how to do this Law > 16B3 tells him to follow the procedure in Law 12C. > > Law 12C1 inclusive of 12C1(c) gives him the powers. Law 12 > imposes no limitations on the Director in his assessment. There is > no statement to exclude allowing a proportion of the outcome of > the infractive action where this is considered to be equitable. The > belief that it is contrary to law to do so is not supported by the > text of the laws. A policy of not doing so has developed in some > constituencies and we should not oppose the principle in general, > but where equity calls for it such a policy can be set aside and > there is no breach of the written law in this. > > Be it noted that damage lies in the difference between the balance > of all probabilities of outcome in a smooth auction and the degree > to which an infraction causes the balance to be distorted adversely > against the non-offending side. > > The specific question has never been discussed in the WBFLC > (which interprets the wording of the Law while the application of > the law so interpreted to rulings and appeals is a matter for the > WBF Appeals Committee.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > . > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Nov 30 18:17:36 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:17:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <8D987AB260994033B9C78E4FDCC0444D@Mildred> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <8D987AB260994033B9C78E4FDCC0444D@Mildred> Message-ID: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> [RH] Under Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Partner) the lead of the club king was unlawful, so a result deriving from a club king opening lead must not be included in the > weightings of any subsequent rectifying score. Law 12C1(c) weightings are merely judgements on the likelihood of various outcomes If The Law 16B Infraction Had Never Happened." [DALB] No, they aren't. It is only Law 12C1(e) that refers to results that are likely if the irregularity had not occurred. Law 12C1(c) says only that the score assigned "may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results". This leaves open the question of whether the Director may take into account the probability that a player who has committed an infraction by doing X would have done X anyway in a position where to do X would not be an infraction. Such a ruling is known in England as a Reveley Ruling, after a referee who gave one under the 1997 code (when such rulings were illegal). But under the 2007 code there is nothing that renders Reveley Rulings illegal, and you can give them if you like. You shouldn't, because they're stupid, but... David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 30 18:31:34 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:31:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <8D987AB260994033B9C78E4FDCC0444D@Mildred> <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> Message-ID: <4B140176.2060707@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [RH] > > Under Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Partner) the lead of the club > king was unlawful, so a result deriving from a club king opening lead must > not be included in the > weightings of any subsequent rectifying score. Law > 12C1(c) weightings are merely judgements on the likelihood of various > outcomes If The Law 16B Infraction Had Never Happened." > > [DALB] > > No, they aren't. It is only Law 12C1(e) that refers to results that are > likely if the irregularity had not occurred. Law 12C1(c) says only that the > score assigned "may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of > potential results". This leaves open the question of whether the Director > may take into account the probability that a player who has committed an > infraction by doing X would have done X anyway in a position where to do X > would not be an infraction. > AG : I thought that weighting in L12C1(c) was there to take into account what the NON-offending side would have done, absent the infraction. e.g. after a non-bridge hesitation, declarer plays hesitator for the Queen and that's wrong. Adjust the score, guessing what would have happened if there had been no hesitation, which will usually mean a weighted score. Opinions ? Best regards Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 30 18:54:18 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:54:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <4B13F23A.40706@ulb.ac.be> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B13E901.1080908@skynet.be> <001c01ca71d7$91cfc320$b56f4960$@nl> <4B13F23A.40706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001d01ca71e6$236c7e50$6a457af0$@nl> Exactly. Suppose partner hesitates, or frowns, or whatever, and a player shoots 7NT, making. It is decided that the hesitation, frown or whatever, suggest bidding 7NT, so the players action falls under law 16. The TD decides his 7NT call is illegal. Now if the only legal call of the player is 6NT, the boards is presumably scored 6NT+1, but if he has a choice between two legal calls, eg 6NT, ending the auction, and some intermediate bid("anything extra pd?") the final contract of 7NT might still be included in a weighted score IMHO. This is all pretty tricky, and in general I would be pretty suspicious of auctions leading to the same "illegal" result, but I just want to make clear that the fact that an immediate 7NT call is illegal does not make the 7NT final contract an automatic 0% in any weighted score. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: maandag 30 november 2009 17:27 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > Although I agree mostly with this I want to make it clear that I still think > in a bit round-about way the result can come back. > > Suppose a player has a choice between calls A,B and C. UI suggest C, so he > is not allowed to bid it. His free choices are A and B. Suppose he chooses > A. Now the bidding is live again. Eventually the contract reached is the > same as one that could be reached through his choice of C. > > If this is legal then I think that the result of the illegal choice of C can > be included in the weighted score, not because his call of C is weighed at > more than 0%, but because the same result could be achieved in a legal way. > AG : I'm lost. In that case it isn't the result of choice C that's included, but the result of choiice A, and the fact that it's the same one is irrelevant. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Mon Nov 30 19:05:36 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:05:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <8D987AB260994033B9C78E4FDCC0444D@Mildred> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred><000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <8D987AB260994033B9C78E4FDCC0444D@Mildred> Message-ID: <16A20D66F2604AB18A369ADE2E2D1EF0@mikePC> Grattan Is the Appeal you referred to published anywhere? I know you brought some details to L&E but these were not incorporated in the minutes Mike -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 4:34 PM To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "a revolutionary moment in the world's > history is a time for revolutions, not for > patching." > [Beveridge Report, 1942] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ I have nothing to add, other than to be quite clear > that I have reported the facts accurately. What I say > about the wording of the laws is also factual. > The appeal in the last world championships, which > I reported but without advising the AC, conformed to > the previous (2000) stance of the Appeals Committee > concerning which I speak with direct knowledge. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 3:23 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. > > >> ton: >> I am not so sure that this message from Grattan is a useful contribution >> to >> any discussion about the application or interpretation of the bridge >> laws. >> Suggesting that the WBF Appeals committee supports his view seems wrong >> to >> me. >> At one moment some people having to deal with an appeal in the last world >> championships acted as described but whether this should be considered an >> official view by any body is questionable if not negative. >> As far as I know the chief TD of the WBF does not agree, nor do some >> members >> of the wbf lc and its chairman. >> So it might be better to forget this message from Grattan up till the >> moment >> that confirmation from some authority is given, which I doubt will >> happen. >> >> To give only one argument not to support Grattan's view is that we invite >> players to abuse the laws with such approach. You will get at least part >> of >> your slam, isn't it? >> >> >> ton >> >> >> >> >> In the topic entitled 'Mixed Score Arithmetic', where UI in >> the auction suggested a club opening lead, Richard Hills >> stated: >> " Under Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Partner) >> the lead of the club king was unlawful, so a result deriving >> from a club king opening lead must not be included in the >> weightings of any subsequent rectifying score. Law 12C1(c) >> weightings are merely judgements on the likelihood of various >> outcomes If The Law 16B Infraction Had Never Happened." >> < >> +=+ This position is adopted by some regulating authorities. >> When the question was last discussed by the WBF Appeals >> Committee a different view prevailed.. >> >> In Maastricht, 2000, I was seeking to persuade the appeals >> committee of the merits of weighted adjustments. Eventually >> the committee consented to adopt the method subject to a >> condition allowing inclusion of a proportion of the score that >> was the outcome of the infraction if it were judged a proportion >> of players of like standard would make that call in an untroubled >> auction. So if 30 in 100 such players would make the call the >> outcome should be entered as to 30% in the weighting. It was >> considered that if the objective of weighting is equity, not >> punishment, equity calls for its inclusion. For a punitive award >> the Director should turn to Law 90. (Apart from words in the >> Introduction to the 2007 laws, there is also a Laws Committee >> minute on this point - meeting of 20th January 2000, item 12.) >> >> Law 16B1 says it is an infraction, having received from partner >> unauthorized information ('UI'), to choose from among logical >> alternatives an action that could be suggested over another by >> the UI. Law 16B3 says that if a player violates this law and gains >> an advantage from doing so, the Director shall assign an adjusted >> score. When the Director wishes to know how to do this Law >> 16B3 tells him to follow the procedure in Law 12C. >> >> Law 12C1 inclusive of 12C1(c) gives him the powers. Law 12 >> imposes no limitations on the Director in his assessment. There is >> no statement to exclude allowing a proportion of the outcome of >> the infractive action where this is considered to be equitable. The >> belief that it is contrary to law to do so is not supported by the >> text of the laws. A policy of not doing so has developed in some >> constituencies and we should not oppose the principle in general, >> but where equity calls for it such a policy can be set aside and >> there is no breach of the written law in this. >> >> Be it noted that damage lies in the difference between the balance >> of all probabilities of outcome in a smooth auction and the degree >> to which an infraction causes the balance to be distorted adversely >> against the non-offending side. >> >> The specific question has never been discussed in the WBFLC >> (which interprets the wording of the Law while the application of >> the law so interpreted to rulings and appeals is a matter for the >> WBF Appeals Committee.) >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> . >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 30 20:21:54 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:21:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <001d01ca71e6$236c7e50$6a457af0$@nl> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B13E901.1080908@skynet.be> <001c01ca71d7$91cfc320$b56f4960$@nl> <4B13F23A.40706@ulb.ac.be> <001d01ca71e6$236c7e50$6a457af0$@nl> Message-ID: <5E38285E-4738-4084-963A-E8F1CADC15C9@starpower.net> On Nov 30, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Exactly. Suppose partner hesitates, or frowns, or whatever, and a > player > shoots 7NT, making. It is decided that the hesitation, frown or > whatever, > suggest bidding 7NT, so the players action falls under law 16. The TD > decides his 7NT call is illegal. Now if the only legal call of the > player is > 6NT, the boards is presumably scored 6NT+1, but if he has a choice > between > two legal calls, eg 6NT, ending the auction, and some intermediate > bid("anything extra pd?") the final contract of 7NT might still be > included > in a weighted score IMHO. > > This is all pretty tricky, and in general I would be pretty > suspicious of > auctions leading to the same "illegal" result, but I just want to > make clear > that the fact that an immediate 7NT call is illegal does not make > the 7NT > final contract an automatic 0% in any weighted score. I think Hans may have a valid point here, but the explication doesn't make sense to me. If a player has UI to suggest that a grand slam bid is more likely to be successful than a small slam bid, mustn't the same UI also suggest that a grand slam try is more likely to be successful than a signoff in six? If A is suggested over B, how can some C which must produce either the same result as A or the same result as B not be suggested over B? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:30:42 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:30:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <5E38285E-4738-4084-963A-E8F1CADC15C9@starpower.net> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <4B13E901.1080908@skynet.be> <001c01ca71d7$91cfc320$b56f4960$@nl> <4B13F23A.40706@ulb.ac.be> <001d01ca71e6$236c7e50$6a457af0$@nl> <5E38285E-4738-4084-963A-E8F1CADC15C9@starpower.net> Message-ID: 2009/11/30 Eric Landau : > On Nov 30, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > >> Exactly. Suppose partner hesitates, or frowns, or whatever, and a >> player >> shoots 7NT, making. It is decided that the hesitation, frown or >> whatever, >> suggest bidding 7NT, so the players action falls under law 16. The TD >> decides his 7NT call is illegal. Now if the only legal call of the >> player is >> 6NT, the boards is presumably scored 6NT+1, but if he has a choice >> between >> two legal calls, eg 6NT, ending the auction, and some intermediate >> bid("anything extra pd?") the final contract of 7NT might still be >> included >> in a weighted score IMHO. >> >> This is all pretty tricky, and in general I would be pretty >> suspicious of >> auctions leading to the same "illegal" result, but I just want to >> make clear >> that the fact that an immediate 7NT call is illegal does not make >> the 7NT >> final contract an automatic 0% in any weighted score. > > I think Hans may have a valid point here, but the explication doesn't > make sense to me. ?If a player has UI to suggest that a grand slam > bid is more likely to be successful than a small slam bid, mustn't > the same UI also suggest that a grand slam try is more likely to be > successful than a signoff in six? ?If A is suggested over B, how can > some C which must produce either the same result as A or the same > result as B not be suggested over B? > You might be in a position where your alternatives are bidding a grand directly or making a grand slam try and involve partner in the decision, where signing off at the 6-level isn't a LA. If UI suggest bidding the grand, you're not allowed to do that. And the TD/AC has to judge how often partner will accept the invite or not. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 30 22:39:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:39:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601ca71e1$074d7ee0$15e87ca0$@com> Message-ID: The Aussie Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (insert name here) was indulging in a photo opportunity by touring a hospital. At the first bed she stopped at, she smiled and asked, "How are you?", only to get this response: "Wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beastie, O, what a panic's in thy breastie! Thou need na start awa sae hasty, Wi' bickering brattle!" Puzzled, the Leader of the Opposition (insert name here) moved to the next bed and asked, "Are you getting better?", but now she heard: "O, wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion." So somewhat bemused, the Leader of the Opposition (insert name here) asked a nearby nurse, "Is this the psychiatric ward?" His reply was, "No, this is the serious Burns ward." David Burn London, England: >.....Law 12C1(c) says only that the score assigned "may be weighted to >reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results". This >leaves open the question of whether the Director may take into account >the probability that a player who has committed an infraction by doing >X would have done X anyway in a position where to do X would not be an >infraction. > >Such a ruling is known in England as a Reveley Ruling, after a referee >who gave one under the 1997 code (when such rulings were illegal). But >under the 2007 code there is nothing that renders Reveley Rulings >illegal, and you can give them if you like. You shouldn't, because >they're stupid, but... Anti-Reveley Ruling first sentence of 2007 Law 12B1: "The objective of score adjustment is to **redress damage** to a non- offending side and to **take away any advantage** gained by an offending side **through its infraction**." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 30 23:44:15 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:44:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <001c01ca71d7$91cfc320$b56f4960$@nl> References: <55169E68B1F14C37B33E89C7DBC7D692@Mildred> <000601ca71d1$10290df0$307b29d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4B13E901.1080908@skynet.be> <001c01ca71d7$91cfc320$b56f4960$@nl> Message-ID: <4B144ABF.2010903@skynet.be> Of course Hans. Also, if the table result is -100, from some unreachable contract, and there are 2 other scores possible, from reachable contracts, -300 and -100, then again the table score can have a weighting. But I think we all understand the basic problem. Herman. Hans van Staveren wrote: > Although I agree mostly with this I want to make it clear that I still think > in a bit round-about way the result can come back. > > Suppose a player has a choice between calls A,B and C. UI suggest C, so he > is not allowed to bid it. His free choices are A and B. Suppose he chooses > A. Now the bidding is live again. Eventually the contract reached is the > same as one that could be reached through his choice of C. > > If this is legal then I think that the result of the illegal choice of C can > be included in the weighted score, not because his call of C is weighed at > more than 0%, but because the same result could be achieved in a legal way. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: maandag 30 november 2009 16:47 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. > > I am personally very glad that Ton wrote this message. > I concur completely with Ton in this matter. > It is simply wrong to give part of a result that cannot be attained at > all, when following the laws to the letter. > Thanks Ton, for clarifying this. > Herman. > > ton wrote: >> ton: >> I am not so sure that this message from Grattan is a useful contribution > to >> any discussion about the application or interpretation of the bridge laws. > >> Suggesting that the WBF Appeals committee supports his view seems wrong to >> me. >> At one moment some people having to deal with an appeal in the last world >> championships acted as described but whether this should be considered an >> official view by any body is questionable if not negative. >> As far as I know the chief TD of the WBF does not agree, nor do some > members >> of the wbf lc and its chairman. >> So it might be better to forget this message from Grattan up till the > moment >> that confirmation from some authority is given, which I doubt will happen. >> >> To give only one argument not to support Grattan's view is that we invite >> players to abuse the laws with such approach. You will get at least part > of >> your slam, isn't it? >> >> >> ton >> >> >> >> >> In the topic entitled 'Mixed Score Arithmetic', where UI in >> the auction suggested a club opening lead, Richard Hills >> stated: >> " Under Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Partner) >> the lead of the club king was unlawful, so a result deriving >> from a club king opening lead must not be included in the >> weightings of any subsequent rectifying score. Law 12C1(c) >> weightings are merely judgements on the likelihood of various >> outcomes If The Law 16B Infraction Had Never Happened." >> < >> +=+ This position is adopted by some regulating authorities. >> When the question was last discussed by the WBF Appeals >> Committee a different view prevailed.. >> >> In Maastricht, 2000, I was seeking to persuade the appeals >> committee of the merits of weighted adjustments. Eventually >> the committee consented to adopt the method subject to a >> condition allowing inclusion of a proportion of the score that >> was the outcome of the infraction if it were judged a proportion >> of players of like standard would make that call in an untroubled >> auction. So if 30 in 100 such players would make the call the >> outcome should be entered as to 30% in the weighting. It was >> considered that if the objective of weighting is equity, not >> punishment, equity calls for its inclusion. For a punitive award >> the Director should turn to Law 90. (Apart from words in the >> Introduction to the 2007 laws, there is also a Laws Committee >> minute on this point - meeting of 20th January 2000, item 12.) >> >> Law 16B1 says it is an infraction, having received from partner >> unauthorized information ('UI'), to choose from among logical >> alternatives an action that could be suggested over another by >> the UI. Law 16B3 says that if a player violates this law and gains >> an advantage from doing so, the Director shall assign an adjusted >> score. When the Director wishes to know how to do this Law >> 16B3 tells him to follow the procedure in Law 12C. >> >> Law 12C1 inclusive of 12C1(c) gives him the powers. Law 12 >> imposes no limitations on the Director in his assessment. There is >> no statement to exclude allowing a proportion of the outcome of >> the infractive action where this is considered to be equitable. The >> belief that it is contrary to law to do so is not supported by the >> text of the laws. A policy of not doing so has developed in some >> constituencies and we should not oppose the principle in general, >> but where equity calls for it such a policy can be set aside and >> there is no breach of the written law in this. >> >> Be it noted that damage lies in the difference between the balance >> of all probabilities of outcome in a smooth auction and the degree >> to which an infraction causes the balance to be distorted adversely >> against the non-offending side. >> >> The specific question has never been discussed in the WBFLC >> (which interprets the wording of the Law while the application of >> the law so interpreted to rulings and appeals is a matter for the >> WBF Appeals Committee.) >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> . >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 >