From henk at ripe.net Thu Oct 1 01:01:02 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:01:02 +0200 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 nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Oct 1 01:52:07 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:52:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <4ECFAC4ADDD9455384F1E326C1237443@MARVLAPTOP> References: <17474291.1254246830092.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <6C3F4708-760A-4156-8BD9-545C3289C06D@starpower.net> <4ECFAC4ADDD9455384F1E326C1237443@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4AC3EF27.3040703@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] +=+ I have some sympathy for the thought, which is not by any means a new one - it turns up periodically. But in the present state of the game it is out of reach. The decision of the Drafting Committee to expand the subjects susceptible of regulation was a reflection of the number of matters in which the many cultures and environments in which bridge is played wish to follow different paths. [Nige1] How does that follow? A complete set of *default* rules (laws + regulations) doesn't stop chauvinist legislatures from imposing idiosyncratic variations. Among the benefits for players in *conformist* NBOs are - - the enjoyment of *fair* domestic and international competition -- on the same level playing field, in compliance with a - *single* *self-consistent* rule-book. Of course, it is possible that a few dog-in-the-manger NBOs might resent these advantages, but we'll never know until the WBFLC try it. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Oct 1 03:44:11 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:44:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 11 (was 10): what is a BIT? In-Reply-To: <001401ca41a6$e2684020$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001401ca41a6$e2684020$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <904BFB0B9D9F4E48A591C817F994AC0B@erdos> This is Case 11, not Case 10, so I have corrected the subject. "Grattan" writes: > From: "David Grabiner" >>W N E S >> 2H X 3NT >> P P X 4H >> ..X >> >> N-S both claim that West hesitated ten seconds before passing. While >> South's 4H >> was not a skip bid, it was an unexpected bid in this situation, exposing a >> psyche; should West be allowed a bit of time to figure out what is going >> on? >> >> (The Panel didn't rule on this issue, as it determined that East had no LA >> to >> pulling the double, and thus it didn't matter whether there was UI.) >> > +=+ What is the complete auction? +=+ East pulled the double to 4S, which made five for +650; 4Hx would have gone down three for -500. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 1 05:12:17 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:12:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <4AC332AC.9000304@skynet.be> References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be> <59F951AD-724C-4F21-8B05-73D82E782D38@starpower.net> <4AC332AC.9000304@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:27:56 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Sep 29, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:30:51 -0400, Herman De Wael >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Of course. I fail to see why the WBF decided otherwise - is there any >>>> region in the world with differing bidding box regulations - and is >>>> there any need for them if they are there. >>> My memory is that many places say that once a call is taken out of the >>> bidding box, it must be made; the ACBL (I hope!) says the call is >>> not made >>> until it is placed faced up on the table or indicated as made. Or >>> something like that. But taking out a call and putting it back is >>> just UI. >> >> It is no more UI than, say, thinking about a bid or play. It is a >> common and normal action, albeit one which (like thinking) can serve >> as a vehicle for the transmission of UI, but it is hardly UI per se. >> Indeed, most of the time a player removes a card from his bid box and >> then puts it back, it is obvious that he has looked at the face of >> the card and realized that it was not the one he was attempting to >> pull, a mechanical correction with no UI implications at all. The >> ACBL rule makes sense; it avoids irregularities. You take out the >> bid card, check it to make sure it's the one you meant to show, then >> play it (by placing it in "played position") only after confirming >> that it is, making an obviously harmless correction if it isn't, >> >> There is no reason for the accidental exposure of an unintended bid >> card to be treated as an irregularity analogous to the accidental >> exposure of a card from one's hand -- everyone already knows you have >> it in your bid box! >> > > That is hardly the case we are thinking of. > L25 still applies. > When a player takes out a bidding card, wiggles it to drop out the > unwanted extras, there is nothing wrong. > The case we are talking about is a player taking out the 3H bid, looking > at it, thinking about it, putting it back, thinking some more, touching > the double card, stopping mid-stride, thinking some more, and finally > selecting the 2H bid card, putting that down after a little more thought. > > That is more than "we already know it's in his bidding box". It's even > more than mere UI that he was thinking. The only way to deal with this > is to say that a bid is made when the player has taken it out of his > bidding box (and it was the one he intended to take out at that time). > > I don't see any reason why we cannot decide on one such regulation and > settle it for the whole world. There is no single reason why Americans > need another law than Europeans, other than some WBFLC members not > willing to upset an apple cart. Herman exaggerates the problem. But I think Eric understates it. I do get those calls; they are UI, whether or not the UI is useful. One that comes to mind is reaching for a pass, then changing his mind and deciding to bid, showing a subminimal raise. The actual ACBL regulation, at least as stated on their website: "A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." I have learned simply not to think about my bid once I have touched my bidding card. More than once I have felt some regret between putting my fingers on the card and placing on the table, but I just ignore it. So your typical experienced player in ACBL-land is going to behave just like your experienced player where a card pulled from the bidding box is played. So the goal in ACBL-land is to get the players to play as if they were using the European regulations. It is always trouble to change a regulation. Except for that, I would guess the ACBL would be slighly better off changing their regulation. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 1 08:01:47 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:01:47 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 11 (was 10): what is a BIT? References: <001401ca41a6$e2684020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <904BFB0B9D9F4E48A591C817F994AC0B@erdos> Message-ID: > > East pulled the double to 4S, which made five for +650; 4Hx would > have gone down > three for -500. The Decision: Ten players were polled. Eight of the 10 took action over the double-two passed. Most of the players polled thought that when South bid 4H, his hand became an open book with long hearts and no values; therefore, pass was not considered by the panel to be a logical alternative. Therefore the result of 4S by East making five, E/W plus 650 was restored for both pairs. Marv: Those being polled are supposed to be asked what they would seriously consider doing, in addition to what they would actually do. We don't know if any of the eight seriously considered passing, even though they would bid 4S. If a few would have seriously considered passing, these together with the two who would pass constitute a "substantial number," sufficient to make passing an LA in ACBL-land.. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 08:34:37 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 08:34:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 10: what is a BIT? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/9/30 Eric Landau : > On Sep 29, 2009, at 10:40 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > >> W ? N ? E ? S >> ? ? 2H ?X ? 3NT >> P ? P ? X ? 4H >> ..X >> >> N-S both claim that West hesitated ten seconds before passing. >> While South's 4H >> was not a skip bid, it was an unexpected bid in this situation, >> exposing a >> psyche; should West be allowed a bit of time to figure out what is >> going on? > > Yes he should, per ACBL guidelines. ?A "break in tempo" is defined as > a deviation from "normal" tempo, and the ACBL has recognized that > "normal tempo" in high-level complex or unexpected auctions is not > the same as in common, routine ones. 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. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 henk at ripe.net Thu Oct 1 09:59:35 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:59:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for September 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 59 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 41 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 30 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 30 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 24 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 19 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 18 ehaa (at) starpower.net 18 blml (at) arcor.de 14 svenpran (at) online.no 12 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 11 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 8 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 8 adam (at) tameware.com 6 swillner (at) nhcc.net 6 henk (at) ripe.net 6 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 5 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 4 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com 3 tedying (at) yahoo.com 3 taigabridge (at) hotmail.com 3 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 3 jimfox00 (at) cox.net 3 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 3 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 3 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 martino (at) bridgenz.co.nz 2 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 2 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 2 Frances.Hinden (at) Shell.com 1 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 1 schoderb (at) msn.com 1 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 1 jmmgc1 (at) hotmail.com 1 jfchevalier (at) ffbridge.net 1 hans-olof.hallen (at) bolina.hsb.se 1 geller (at) nifty.com 1 craigstamps (at) comcast.net 1 adam (at) irvine.com 1 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 1 Arbhuston (at) aol.com From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 1 10:08:54 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:08:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 11 (was 10): what is a BIT? In-Reply-To: <904BFB0B9D9F4E48A591C817F994AC0B@erdos> References: <001401ca41a6$e2684020$0302a8c0@Mildred> <904BFB0B9D9F4E48A591C817F994AC0B@erdos> Message-ID: <001401ca426e$6b225b90$416712b0$@nl> The only interesting time I see here is the time South took before pulling 3NTx to 4H. If that was longer than say 0.004 microseconds I would want to have a word with him/her. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Grabiner Sent: donderdag 1 oktober 2009 3:44 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 11 (was 10): what is a BIT? This is Case 11, not Case 10, so I have corrected the subject. "Grattan" writes: > From: "David Grabiner" >>W N E S >> 2H X 3NT >> P P X 4H >> ..X >> >> N-S both claim that West hesitated ten seconds before passing. While >> South's 4H >> was not a skip bid, it was an unexpected bid in this situation, exposing a >> psyche; should West be allowed a bit of time to figure out what is going >> on? >> >> (The Panel didn't rule on this issue, as it determined that East had no LA >> to >> pulling the double, and thus it didn't matter whether there was UI.) >> > +=+ What is the complete auction? +=+ East pulled the double to 4S, which made five for +650; 4Hx would have gone down three for -500. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 1 11:48:17 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:48:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Parachutist at 7NT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AC47AE1.7000203@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Parachutist at Fine Leg, and other unusual occurrences from Wisden > edited by Gideon Haigh, page 122: > > "Cricket in Fiji has various problems. In Lau, one of the > traditional strongholds of the game, it has been affected by an > increase in population and consequent encroachment on the village > greens. Our national coach, Seci Sekinni, recently came across a > ground where the pitch had been moved to accommodate new buildings, > and as a result the outfielders were required to stand in the sea. > It was thought this might be the origin of deep mid-off." > > Richard Hills, 2nd June 2003, 1997 Lawbook query: > > >> Yesterday, I conducted a relay auction. My opponents followed the >> Grattanista principle of not asking questions during the auction, >> as neither had any intention of interfering. Eventually, I >> decided to declare 7NT. After three passes, my LHO (on lead) >> again followed the Grattanista principle by only now asking what >> pard's bids had showed. I replied that dummy guaranteed holding >> these cards: >> >> Kx >> KQxxx >> xx >> Qxxx >> >> LHO started thinking about her opening lead. To save time, I >> claimed, revealing my hand as: >> >> AQJ6 >> AJ76 >> AKQ9 >> A >> >> Given that the auction period still has not ended, did I legally >> claim, or did I illegally infract Law 24C? >> AG : here is a happy fellow, who is sure partner didn't err in his system. I wouldn't dare of claiming this way, even at the time when I played with a theorician of relay systems, who didn't ever err (er, in the bidding). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 1 11:53:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:53:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 11 (was 10): what is a BIT? References: <001401ca41a6$e2684020$0302a8c0@Mildred><904BFB0B9D9F4E48A591C817F994AC0B@erdos> <001401ca426e$6b225b90$416712b0$@nl> Message-ID: <002001ca427d$14c7bce0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 11 (was 10): what is a BIT? > The only interesting time I see here is the time South took before pulling > 3NTx to 4H. If that was longer than say 0.004 microseconds I would want to > have a word with him/her. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > David Grabiner > Sent: donderdag 1 oktober 2009 3:44 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 11 (was 10): what is a BIT? > > This is Case 11, not Case 10, so I have corrected the subject. > > "Grattan" writes: > >> From: "David Grabiner" > >>>W N E S >>> 2H X 3NT >>> P P X 4H >>> ..X >>> >>> N-S both claim that West hesitated ten seconds before passing. While >>> South's 4H >>> was not a skip bid, it was an unexpected bid in this situation, exposing > a >>> psyche; should West be allowed a bit of time to figure out what is going >>> on? >>> >>> (The Panel didn't rule on this issue, as it determined that East had no > LA >>> to >>> pulling the double, and thus it didn't matter whether there was UI.) >>> >> +=+ What is the complete auction? +=+ > > East pulled the double to 4S, which made five for +650; 4Hx would have > gone > down > three for -500. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 1 12:40:00 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:40:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be> <59F951AD-724C-4F21-8B05-73D82E782D38@starpower.net> <4AC332AC.9000304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4AC48700.6090503@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > So the goal in ACBL-land is to get the players to play as if they were > using the European regulations. It is always trouble to change a > regulation. Except for that, I would guess the ACBL would be slighly > better off changing their regulation. > What we are advocating is not changing the ACBL regulation, we are advocating putting the regulation into the laws, at their regular 10-year interval. I did not understand why they did not do so in 1997, and I was flabbergasted to see it was not even considered for 2007. I'm sure the ACBL can withstand a single change in "regulation" in 2017. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 1 12:39:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 11:39:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 11 (was 10): what is a BIT? References: <001401ca41a6$e2684020$0302a8c0@Mildred><904BFB0B9D9F4E48A591C817F994AC0B@erdos> Message-ID: <000e01ca4283$75c2f360$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 11 (was 10): what is a BIT? > >> >> East pulled the double to 4S, which made five for +650; 4Hx > would have gone down three for -500. > > The Decision: > > Ten players were polled. Eight of the 10 took action over the > double-two passed. Most of the players polled thought that when > South bid 4H, his hand became an open book with long hearts > and no values; therefore, pass (of West's double) was not > considered by the panel to be a logical alternative. Therefore the > result of 4S by East making five, E/W plus 650 was restored for > both pairs. > > Marv: > > Those being polled are supposed to be asked what they would > seriously consider doing, in addition to what they would actually > do. We don't know if any of the eight seriously considered passing, > even though they would bid 4S. If a few would have seriously > considered passing, these together with the two who would pass > constitute a "substantial number," sufficient to make passing an LA > in ACBL-land.. > +=+ I quote the following from the minutes of the English Bridge Union's Laws & Ethics Committee meeting, 24 Sept 2009: "Mr Bavin asked to revisit the decision of the committee to attach a percentage to 'significant proportion' in Law 16B1(b) and the failure to do so when considering 'some'. He had been against the decision to attach percentages and had been in correspondence with a member. It was his view that the figure of 20% for those who would give 'serious consideration' was not correct. It was his view that not enough weight was being given to 'serious consideration' and that 'passing consideration' was not good enough. The committee expressed the view that the practical effect of the new law had been to increase the old 'benchmark' of 70% to a higher level (of the order of 80-85%) and whether figures were used or not the guidance should reflect this. It was left to Mr Dhondy and Mr Bavin to produce revised wording for consideration next time." My personal opinion is that 21% would be a significant proportion, and that 'some' is plural but at minimum may be very few. I agree that 'serious consideration' by a player is of an order that does not dismiss the thought rapidly. The advice given to the WBF Laws Committee in 1992 by Kaplan and myself was to concentrate not on the status of the call actually made but rather to consider the call NOT made and whether it qualifies as a logical alternative. We also opposed attaching any percentages to the concepts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 3 07:45:13 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 22:45:13 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 1 Message-ID: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP> East opened 4NT (Alerted, minors), West bid 5C, North asked a lot of questions before passing, and South bid 5S. Now West bid 6C with Kxxx Kxxx x Axxx instead of doubling for +800. 6C doubled went down one for -100. The TD and TD Panel agreed on letting E-W keep their result because of the 6C bid, deeming it a "serious error," but adjusted the N-S score to 5C by West making five, -400. West had 4,845 masterpoints, so let's say the 6C bid was indeed a serious error. 4NT was not Alertable, according to the ACBL Alert Procedure. HOWEVER The most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred was +400 in 5C, and E-W should have received that score adjustment. The TD Panel cited Law 12C1(b), but the "serious error" was related to the infraction and should therefore have been ignored. Nor was 6C a wild or gambling action. It only went off one, after all, and two of the players polled wanted to bid 6C instead of 5C at their first turn. Question for Grattan: Is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for N-S a contract of 5S doubled for -800? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Oct 3 14:55:48 2009 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 13:55:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> HdW Of course. I fail to see why the WBF decided otherwise - is there any region in the world with differing bidding box regulations - and is there any need for them if they are there. SLR: There are differing bidding box regulations, though I don't think that there is any need for them. In the EBU bidding cards have to be left out until a face-down opening lead is made; this is so that third hand has the chance to answer questions about the auction. In other jurisdictions the bidding cards are supposed to be picked up before the opening lead is made (though these places tend to lead face-down anyway; I've no idea why). Stefanie Rohan London, England __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4477 (20091002) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 3 16:42:36 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 16:42:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be> <6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> Message-ID: <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no> On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > HdW > > Of course. I fail to see why the WBF decided otherwise - is there any region in the > world with differing bidding box regulations - and is there any need for them if they > are there. > > SLR: > > There are differing bidding box regulations, though I don't think that there is any > need for them. In the EBU bidding cards have to be left out until a face-down > opening lead is made; this is so that third hand has the chance to answer > questions about the auction. In other jurisdictions the bidding cards are supposed > to be picked up before the opening lead is made (though these places tend to > lead face-down anyway; I've no idea why). You don't need bidding cards in order to ask questions or reply to them. Face down opening lead is required so that first hand cannot be suspected of having based his/her opening lead on question(s) asked by third hand. Regards Sven From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Oct 3 18:58:17 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:58:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 1 In-Reply-To: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP> References: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4AC782A9.9020302@nhcc.net> Marvin L French wrote: > East opened 4NT (Alerted, minors) ... > 4NT was not Alertable, according to the ACBL Alert Procedure. Since when is an opening 4NT showing minors not alertable in the ACBL? I'd expect an alert for anything other than strong, balanced. The Alert Procedures document says "Systemically unbalanced or conventional 1NT openings or overcalls by an unpassed hand, when permitted, and openings at the two level or higher with an unusual range or conventional meaning require an Alert." This isn't relevant to the question Marv was asking, but I wanted to clear it up. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Oct 4 07:14:29 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 22:14:29 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 1 References: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP> <4AC782A9.9020302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <474BFF8001B34BB799CBE23653F40985@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Steve Willner" < > Marvin L French wrote: >> East opened 4NT (Alerted, minors) > ... >> 4NT was not Alertable, according to the ACBL Alert Procedure. > > Since when is an opening 4NT showing minors not alertable in the > ACBL? > I'd expect an alert for anything other than strong, balanced. The > Alert > Procedures document says "Systemically unbalanced or conventional > 1NT > openings or overcalls by an unpassed hand, when permitted, and > openings > at the two level or higher with an unusual range or conventional > meaning > require an Alert." > > This isn't relevant to the question Marv was asking, but I wanted > to > clear it up My summary of the Alert Procedure, on my web site under Bridge Laws and Regulations says under Do Not Alert: "4NT or higher unusual NT bid, an unusual jump to 2NT, or any unusual NT by a passed hand." Of course "unusual notrump" comes only after an opponent has bid, so my statement is wrong. An opening 4NT bid showing the minors is indeed Alertable. Thank you, Steve. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Oct 4 07:49:18 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 22:49:18 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be><6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no> Message-ID: <0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Sven Pran" > > Face down opening lead is required so that first hand cannot be > suspected of > having based his/her opening lead on question(s) asked by third > hand. Face-up opening leads would serve the same purpose, since third hand may not ask questions until the opening lead is made. The main reasons for face-down leads are: 1. To prevent an opening lead by the wrong person. 2. To prevent declarer from seeing the dummy before answering third-hand's question(s). 3. To allow the auction to be backed up if questioning by third hand brings to light misinformation that affected his side's last call. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Oct 4 09:20:15 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:20:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be><6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no> <0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4AC84CAF.4060906@yahoo.co.uk> [Marvin French] The main reasons for face-down leads are: 1. To prevent an opening lead by the wrong person. 2. To prevent declarer from seeing the dummy before answering third-hand's question(s). 3. To allow the auction to be backed up if questioning by third hand brings to light misinformation that affected his side's last call. [Nigel] IMO, they are a great improvement. From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 4 11:08:43 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 11:08:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be><6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no> <0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000301ca44d2$45bc9c10$d135d430$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin L French > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > Face down opening lead is required so that first hand cannot be > > suspected of having based his/her opening lead on question(s) asked by > > third hand. > > Face-up opening leads would serve the same purpose, since third hand may not > ask questions until the opening lead is made. > > The main reasons for face-down leads are: > > 1. To prevent an opening lead by the wrong person. > > 2. To prevent declarer from seeing the dummy before answering third-hand's > question(s). > > 3. To allow the auction to be backed up if questioning by third hand brings to light > misinformation that affected his side's last call. That item 1 is the reason is a very common misunderstanding. It is not the reason but a (beneficial) side effect. How often do we not hear declarer (or even dummy) nod "yes" (implying "yes, it is your lead") to LHO when he makes his face down opening lead? This is an irregularity by the declaring side! RHO is the only player at the table to give a "go" signal to LHO, and on doing so he indicates that he has no (more) questions to make, he does not primarily confirm that it is LHO to lead. Item 2 is irrelevant because at this time the declaring side (both presumed declarer and dummy) must by all means (even inspecting their own system card) give correct information to opponents. Item 3 is only part of the real reason which is: To have LHO select his opening lead without possible UI from RHO asking any questions and to maintain all defenders' rights in case MI is revealed from questions by RHO These rights include not only having the auction backed up, but also the possibility for LHO to change his opening lead. Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 4 13:59:18 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 12:59:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net><4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be> <6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> Message-ID: <000301ca44f2$78512a40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws > > HdW > > Of course. I fail to see why the WBF decided otherwise - is there any > region in the world with differing bidding box regulations - and is > there any need for them if they are there. > > SLR: > > There are differing bidding box regulations, though I don't think that > there > is any need for them. In the EBU bidding cards have to be left out until a > face-down opening lead is made; this is so that third hand has the chance > to > answer questions about the auction. In other jurisdictions the bidding > cards > are supposed to be picked up before the opening lead is made (though these > places tend to lead face-down anyway; I've no idea why). > +=+ European Bridge League Extracts from 2009 bidding box regulations: "A bid is considered to have been made when the bidding card is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but Law 25 may apply and, if a player's mind was elsewhere as he makes an unintended call the "pause for thought" should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error)". .........."With screens in use a call is considered "made" when placed on the tray and released". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Oct 5 01:44:24 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:44:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Problem Message-ID: <4AC93358.9030101@aol.com> Unfortunately my computer or one of the systems/providers/servers/whatever hiccuped and I lost a week's emails and have not yet been able to recover any of them. Can anyone out there tell me where I can find the minutes of the laws committee (or whatever it is called) from Sao Paolo? I checked Anna's (Gudge) home page but was unable to find them there. If that was due to my notorious lack of computer talent/knowledge could someone tell me exactly what I have to access/click on there to find the info? Thanks, JE From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Oct 5 07:19:48 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 22:19:48 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Problem References: <4AC93358.9030101@aol.com> Message-ID: <616BAA88E159484DA586A579F28FDD49@MARVLAPTOP> Jeff wrote: >Can anyone out there > tell me where I can find the minutes of the laws committee (or > whatever > it is called) from Sao Paolo? I checked Anna's (Gudge) home page > but > was unable to find them there. If that was due to my notorious > lack of > computer talent/knowledge could someone tell me exactly what I > have to > access/click on there to find the info? Go back to ecatsbridge.com, click on the Documents link at the top, then click on Laws & Appeals on the right, then click on Laws Committee Minutes on the right and you will see the Sao Paulo minutes at the top of the list. Whew! Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Oct 5 07:54:35 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 22:54:35 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be><6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no><0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP> <000301ca44d2$45bc9c10$d135d430$@no> Message-ID: <81765380450C4BA08CA2252F4CA5AA97@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Sven Pran" wrote Marv wrote >> The main reasons for face-down leads are: >> >> 1. To prevent an opening lead by the wrong person. >> >> 2. To prevent declarer from seeing the dummy before answering >> third-hand's >> question(s). >> >> 3. To allow the auction to be backed up if questioning by third >> hand brings to light misinformation that affected his side's last >> call. > > That item 1 is the reason is a very common misunderstanding. It is > not the > reason but a (beneficial) side effect. That is a good reason for having them. > > How often do we not hear declarer (or even dummy) nod "yes" > (implying "yes, > it is your lead") to LHO when he makes his face down opening lead? > This is > an irregularity by the declaring side! RHO is the only player at > the table > to give a "go" signal to LHO, and on doing so he indicates that he > has no > (more) questions to make, he does not primarily confirm that it is > LHO to > lead. So what? In my club the face-down lead often prevents a lead by the wrong defender. When leading face-down, we just look at partner and say, "Okay?" or "Ready, partner?" before turning it over. I don't like "Any questions?" because it implies that third hand can't question the auction after the lead is faced. > > Item 2 is irrelevant because at this time the declaring side (both > presumed > declarer and dummy) must by all means (even inspecting their own > system > card) give correct information to opponents. You mean without being asked? Other than correcting misinformation that was conveyed earlier, declarer and dummy are not required to explain the nuances of their auction unless asked. That should be a requirement, but it isn't, at least not in ACBL-land. During the clarification period my partnerships routinely say things like, "He could have bypassed a major suit with his two notrump response," a non-Alertable agreement that should be disclosed by declarer or dummy even though it isn' t required. > > Item 3 is only part of the real reason which is: > > To have LHO select his opening lead without possible UI from RHO > asking any > questions and to maintain all defenders' rights in case MI is > revealed from > questions by RHO These rights include not only having the auction > backed > up, but also the possibility for LHO to change his opening lead. Not understood. How can RHO ask revealing questions before a face-up opening lead? That would be illegal. Yes, I should have added item 4: To allow the opening leader to change his lead if questioning by RHO uncovers misinformation that affected the lead. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 5 08:26:05 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 08:26:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <81765380450C4BA08CA2252F4CA5AA97@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be><6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no><0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP> <000301ca44d2$45bc9c10$d135d430$@no> <81765380450C4BA08CA2252F4CA5AA97@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000001ca4584$b7de4fc0$279aef40$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin L French .............. > > Item 3 is only part of the real reason which is: > > > > To have LHO select his opening lead without possible UI from RHO > > asking any questions and to maintain all defenders' rights in case MI > > is revealed from questions by RHO These rights include not only > > having the auction backed up, but also the possibility for LHO to > > change his opening lead. > > Not understood. How can RHO ask revealing questions before a face-up opening > lead? That would be illegal. No. Correct procedure during the clarification period is: 1: Presumed declarer and dummy are jointly responsible for correcting on their own initiative any misinformation they are aware of having been given by them to opponents during the auction. 2: LHO asks the questions (if any) that he has about the auction 3: LHO selects his opening lead and places it face down on the table in front of him 4: RHO asks the questions (if any) that he has about the auction (after hearing questions from and answers to LHO) If at any time so far misinformation during the auction from the presumed declaring side is revealed the Director should be summoned to the table. He shall subject to law 21B allow the auction to be rolled back and/or subject to Law 41A allow LHO to withdraw his face down opening lead. 5: RHO indicates to LHO that LHO may complete the opening lead by facing the card led after which dummy faces his hand.. > > Yes, I should have added item 4: > > To allow the opening leader to change his lead if questioning by RHO uncovers > misinformation that affected the lead. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 5 08:30:04 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 08:30:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <81765380450C4BA08CA2252F4CA5AA97@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be><6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no><0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP> <000301ca44d2$45bc9c10$d135d430$@no> <81765380450C4BA08CA2252F4CA5AA97@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000101ca4585$46a9a3d0$d3fceb70$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin L French ............. > Not understood. How can RHO ask revealing questions before a face-up opening > lead? That would be illegal. Sorry, I overlooked this specific question. See Law 41B, first sentence. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 5 15:49:40 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:49:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 1 In-Reply-To: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP> References: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Oct 3, 2009, at 1:45 AM, Marvin L French wrote: > East opened 4NT (Alerted, minors), West bid 5C, North asked a lot of > questions before passing, and South bid 5S. Now West bid 6C with > Kxxx Kxxx x Axxx instead of doubling for +800. 6C doubled went down > one for -100. > > The TD and TD Panel agreed on letting E-W keep their result because > of the 6C bid, deeming it a "serious error," but adjusted the N-S > score to 5C by West making five, -400. > > West had 4,845 masterpoints, so let's say the 6C bid was indeed a > serious error. > > 4NT was not Alertable, according to the ACBL Alert Procedure. > > HOWEVER > > The most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not > occurred was +400 in 5C, and E-W should have received that score > adjustment. The TD Panel cited Law 12C1(b), but the "serious error" > was related to the infraction and should therefore have been > ignored. Nor was 6C a wild or gambling action. It only went off one, > after all, and two of the players polled wanted to bid 6C instead of > 5C at their first turn. I agree; this was an egregiously bad ruling. There has been a disturbing trend among ACBL TDs and AC members to define a "serious error" as "anything I would have been too clever to do". Errors that "break the connection" between infraction and damage are supposed to be (in Mr. Kaplan's words) "egregious, glaring, foolish". This committee, however, made that finding on the basis of nothing more than that the player's "values should indicate to him that he has a better score available by doubling". What was once a very high bar has turned into a limbo pole. And that's even before we get to "unrelated to the infraction", as Marv points out. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 5 16:58:51 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 10:58:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 1 In-Reply-To: <474BFF8001B34BB799CBE23653F40985@MARVLAPTOP> References: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP> <4AC782A9.9020302@nhcc.net> <474BFF8001B34BB799CBE23653F40985@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Oct 4, 2009, at 1:14 AM, Marvin L French wrote: > From: "Steve Willner" < > >> Marvin L French wrote: > >>> East opened 4NT (Alerted, minors) >> ... >>> 4NT was not Alertable, according to the ACBL Alert Procedure. >> >> Since when is an opening 4NT showing minors not alertable in the >> ACBL? >> I'd expect an alert for anything other than strong, balanced. The >> Alert >> Procedures document says "Systemically unbalanced or conventional >> 1NT >> openings or overcalls by an unpassed hand, when permitted, and >> openings >> at the two level or higher with an unusual range or conventional >> meaning >> require an Alert." >> >> This isn't relevant to the question Marv was asking, but I wanted >> to >> clear it up > > My summary of the Alert Procedure, on my web site under Bridge Laws > and Regulations says under Do Not Alert: > > "4NT or higher unusual NT bid, an unusual jump to 2NT, or any > unusual NT by a passed hand." > > Of course "unusual notrump" comes only after an opponent has bid, so > my statement is wrong. An opening 4NT bid showing the minors is > indeed Alertable. Thank you, Steve. Today's bridge pedagogy stresses memorization of rules and bidding by rote over comprehension of principles and bidding by logic. We see this in the evolution of "unusual notrump" from "the unusual notrump principle" to "The Unusual Notrump Convention" The Unusual Notrump Convention means defining notrump bids in specified auctions as two-suited takeout rather than natural (e.g 1M-2NT for minors). These are explicit agreements about specific auctions -- just the sort of thing for which the alert procedure was designed. The unusual notrump principle is an agreement that a notrump bid which by the logic of the auction cannot possibly be natural shows a two-suiter (e.g. P-1H-P-1S-1NT for minors). Note that these are not alternative treatments; a pair may well play both. The ACBL alert procedure is seriously flawed in that it assumes auction-specific agreements; it thus requires treating the common-sense agreement as if it were the set of explicitly defined conventions. That tempts us to think backwards: a notrump bid is labeled "Unusual" because it is treated as a two-suited takeout, rather than being treated as a two-suited takeout because it is unusual. Here Marv has fallen victim to this terminological confusion. Confronted with "an opening 4NT bid showing the minors", he refers to the alert rules for the "unusual notrump" rather than those for "openings by an unpassed hand at the two-level or higher". Why? The ACBL does instruct its players to describe their agreements rather than simply naming them. They overlook, however, that it is far more confusing to turn an otherwise descriptive term into a name than to use an arbitrary one; referring to a two-suited notrump bid which is not unusual in the descriptive sense as "Unusual" is, IMO, far worse than calling it, say, "Schwartz". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 5 17:37:33 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:37:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <81765380450C4BA08CA2252F4CA5AA97@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be><6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no><0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP> <000301ca44d2$45bc9c10$d135d430$@no> <81765380450C4BA08CA2252F4CA5AA97@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:54 AM, Marvin L French wrote: > From: "Sven Pran" wrote > > Marv wrote > >>> The main reasons for face-down leads are: >>> >>> 1. To prevent an opening lead by the wrong person. >>> >>> 2. To prevent declarer from seeing the dummy before answering >>> third-hand's >>> question(s). >>> >>> 3. To allow the auction to be backed up if questioning by third >>> hand brings to light misinformation that affected his side's last >>> call. >> >> That item 1 is the reason is a very common misunderstanding. It is >> not the >> reason but a (beneficial) side effect. > > That is a good reason for having them. > >> How often do we not hear declarer (or even dummy) nod "yes" >> (implying "yes, >> it is your lead") to LHO when he makes his face down opening lead? >> This is >> an irregularity by the declaring side! RHO is the only player at >> the table >> to give a "go" signal to LHO, and on doing so he indicates that he >> has no >> (more) questions to make, he does not primarily confirm that it is >> LHO to >> lead. > > So what? In my club the face-down lead often prevents a lead by the > wrong defender. When leading face-down, we just look at partner and > say, "Okay?" or "Ready, partner?" before turning it over. I don't > like "Any questions?" because it implies that third hand can't > question the auction after the lead is faced. > >> Item 2 is irrelevant because at this time the declaring side (both >> presumed >> declarer and dummy) must by all means (even inspecting their own >> system >> card) give correct information to opponents. > > You mean without being asked? Other than correcting misinformation > that was conveyed earlier, declarer and dummy are not required to > explain the nuances of their auction unless asked. That should be a > requirement, but it isn't, at least not in ACBL-land. During the > clarification period my partnerships routinely say things like, "He > could have bypassed a major suit with his two notrump response," a > non-Alertable agreement that should be disclosed by declarer or > dummy even though it isn' t required. > >> Item 3 is only part of the real reason which is: >> >> To have LHO select his opening lead without possible UI from RHO >> asking any >> questions and to maintain all defenders' rights in case MI is >> revealed from >> questions by RHO These rights include not only having the auction >> backed >> up, but also the possibility for LHO to change his opening lead. > > Not understood. How can RHO ask revealing questions before a face-up > opening lead? That would be illegal. > > Yes, I should have added item 4: > > To allow the opening leader to change his lead if questioning by RHO > uncovers misinformation that affected the lead. Whatever the details, all agree that the purpose of the face-down opening lead is to preserve the leader's rights (as to change his lead if MI is revealed) and/or to protect his options (as to withdraw the lead without penalty if he's not on lead). It follows that if the opening leader leads face up, he may lose some of those rights or options. As Marv alludes to, however, there are those who do not understand the principle at work, and who believe that leading face up places some restriction or constraint on the leader's partner (such as "third hand can't question the auction after the lead is faced"). That's a common but serious misunderstanding that must be stamped out if face-down leads are to work as they were meant to. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 6 01:15:36 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:15:36 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 1 References: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP><4AC782A9.9020302@nhcc.net><474BFF8001B34BB799CBE23653F40985@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > Here Marv has fallen victim to this terminological confusion. > Confronted with "an opening 4NT bid showing the minors", he refers > to > the alert rules for the "unusual notrump" rather than those for > "openings by an unpassed hand at the two-level or higher". Why? Because I stupidly misread my own Alert summary as applying to opening bids as well as overcalls. A notrump opening bid showing the minors is not unusual notrump and is not Alertable > > The ACBL does instruct its players to describe their agreements > rather than simply naming them. They overlook, however, that it > is > far more confusing to turn an otherwise descriptive term into a > name > than to use an arbitrary one; referring to a two-suited notrump > bid > which is not unusual in the descriptive sense as "Unusual" is, > IMO, > far worse than calling it, say, "Schwartz". Agreed. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Oct 6 01:36:05 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:36:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 1 In-Reply-To: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP> References: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4ACA82E5.8040301@yahoo.co.uk> [Marvin L French] East opened 4NT (Alerted, minors), West bid 5C, North asked a lot of questions before passing, and South bid 5S. Now West bid 6C with Kxxx Kxxx x Axxx instead of doubling for +800. 6C doubled went down one for -100. The TD and TD Panel agreed on letting E-W keep their result because of the 6C bid, deeming it a "serious error," but adjusted the N-S score to 5C by West making five, -400. West had 4,845 masterpoints, so let's say the 6C bid was indeed a serious error. 4NT was not Alertable, according to the ACBL Alert Procedure. HOWEVER The most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred was +400 in 5C, and E-W should have received that score adjustment. The TD Panel cited Law 12C1(b), but the "serious error" was related to the infraction and should therefore have been ignored. Nor was 6C a wild or gambling action. It only went off one, after all, and two of the players polled wanted to bid 6C instead of 5C at their first turn. [Nigel] IMO 1. In any jurisdiction 4N opener = minors should be alertable/announcable or whatever. 2. Law-makers seem have decided to rely excessively on director judgement rather than formulate appropriate laws. 3. Nevertheless, it is taking this principle to bizarre extremes to allow the director to show off his 20-20 hind-sight expertise about doubling 5S rather than bidding 6C. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 5 13:42:45 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:42:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be><6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no><0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP> <4AC84CAF.4060906@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <000501ca461b$e0d75470$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws > [Marvin French] > The main reasons for face-down leads are: > 1. To prevent an opening lead by the wrong person. > 2. To prevent declarer from seeing the dummy before answering > third-hand's question(s). > 3. To allow the auction to be backed up if questioning by third hand > brings to light misinformation that affected his side's last call. > > [Nigel] > IMO, they are a great improvement. > +=+ "affected his side's last call" so that, in the Director's judgement, the last call could well have been different if the player had the correct information and only the correct information. [WBF LC minute 8 Sep 09]. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 6 03:00:49 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 18:00:49 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be><6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no><0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP><4AC84CAF.4060906@yahoo.co.uk> <000501ca461b$e0d75470$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <3FE4D7C40FE4463C85E8A556C87374EB@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > >> [Marvin French] >> The main reasons for face-down leads are: >> 1. To prevent an opening lead by the wrong person. >> 2. To prevent declarer from seeing the dummy before answering >> third-hand's question(s). >> 3. To allow the auction to be backed up if questioning by third >> hand >> brings to light misinformation that affected his side's last >> call. >> >> [Nigel] >> IMO, they are a great improvement. >> > +=+ "affected his side's last call" so that, in the Director's > judgement, the last call could well have been different if > the player had the correct information and only the correct > information. [WBF LC minute 8 Sep 09]. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I neglected to add another item: 4. To allow the face-down lead to be changed if questioning by third hand brings to light information that affected that lead. Yes, both 3. and 4. need the Director's agreement that the misinformation affected the call or play. In my experience, Directors merely say, "Do you want to change your last call?" without any qualification. I have never heard a Director ask a player if he wants to change his face-down opening lead. My impression is that most do not know this is possible, or that a change of card led later in the play is also possible [Law 47E2(a)] Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 6 03:10:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:10:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001ca4584$b7de4fc0$279aef40$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Correct procedure during the clarification period is: > >1: Presumed declarer and dummy are jointly responsible for correcting on >their own initiative any misinformation they are aware of having been >given by them to opponents during the auction. >2: LHO asks the questions (if any) that he has about the auction >3: LHO selects his opening lead and places it face down on the table in >front of him >4: RHO asks the questions (if any) that he has about the auction (after >hearing questions from and answers to LHO) Richard Hills: 5: Under Law 40B2(b) the presumed declarer and dummy may consult their own system cards to ensure the accuracy of their answers to LHO and RHO. See also Law 40B2(c)(ii). Correct procedure during the calamari period is ... Parachutist at Fine Leg, and other unusual occurrences from Wisden Edited by Gideon Haigh, page 28: "It was reported that fried calamari stopped play when Cullinan hit a six off R. Telemachus into a frying pan. It was about ten minutes before the ball was cool enough for the umpires to remove the grease. Even then, Telemachus was unable to grip the ball and it had to be replaced." 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 Oct 6 03:21:46 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 02:21:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be><6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no><0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP><000301ca44d2$45bc9c10$d135d430$@no><81765380450C4BA08CA2252F4CA5AA97@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001a01ca4623$717604c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws > As Marv alludes to, however, there are those who do not > understand the principle at work, and who believe that leading face > up places some restriction or constraint on the leader's partner > (such as "third hand can't question the auction after the lead is > faced"). That's a common but serious misunderstanding that must be > stamped out if face-down leads are to work as they were meant to. > +=+ I presume it is understood that questions authorized under Law 41B before the opening lead is faced are no longer authorized when the lead is faced but questions may still be asked at the defender's turn to play as Law 20F2 allows, and as confirmed in the final sentence of 41B? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 6 07:45:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:45:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Question on single-dummy declarer play -> WEST EAST AT2 Q9743 AK87 5 K9 AQ8765 AKQ7 2 As West you are declarer in 6NT after an uncontested auction. How do you plan the play after: (a) a heart opening lead? (b) a club opening lead? Question on the 2018 Law 94 -> If you could add a Law 94 dealing with one (and only one) topic to the 2018 Lawbook, what would that single topic be? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Tue Oct 6 15:08:45 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:08:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:45 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Question on single-dummy declarer play -> > > WEST EAST > AT2 Q9743 > AK87 5 > K9 AQ8765 > AKQ7 2 > > As West you are declarer in 6NT after an uncontested auction. > > How do you plan the play after: > (a) a heart opening lead? > (b) a club opening lead? S2 to dummy at trick 2, planning to play the 9 if North follows small (unless table feel suggests the Q). > Question on the 2018 Law 94 -> > > If you could add a Law 94 dealing with one (and only one) topic > to the 2018 Lawbook, what would that single topic be? It would explicitly specify a single body authorized to promulgate official interpretations and guidance with respect to the laws, and require that body to make a record of their formal actions available to the public at large at least annually. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 6 21:56:22 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:56:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] rectifying misinformation versus UI when they are about the same yet the laws so different Message-ID: Today. It was a failure-to-alert auction. East claimed that she would not have bid 4Cl had she had the proper explanation. The 4Cl bid provided useful information to South, who then made the winning bid. So the question was South's bid if she did not have that information. I applied the UI procedures, polled two people of similar ability, found that neither one was making the winning bid, and ruled against South. Who appealed. At the appeal, North claimed that I should not have polled people, I should have just make a ruling. Is that true? My rambling thoughts. The situation is functionally identical to a UI situation, except that it is a misinformation auction instead. If the 4Cl bid had been actually withdrawn, it would have been a UI situation. Instead, the 4Cl bid was hypothetically withdrawn, leaving me in Law 21C3. The laws are relatively clear about how to handle the UI situation. For one, it is irrelevant what the player at the table would have done without the UI. Instead, the decision is based on what players of similar ability using the same methods would have done. L21C3 is short. When it is too late to change the call, an adjusted score is awarded when "the director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity". If South would have made the winning call without the additional information, did the additional information help her? I am guessing not. So the question is what South would have done without the extra information. Note that this is the exact opposite of the UI laws, where it is irrelevant what South would have done. Why are the laws different on this point? What am I supposed to do. Ask South what she would have bid without the 4C bid? (That was volunteered to me -- she said she would have made the winning call anyway.) Am I supposed to just decided if I would have made the winning call when I already know what the winning call is? If so, let's make that the law. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 22:08:08 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 22:08:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] rectifying misinformation versus UI when they are about the same yet the laws so different In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/10/6 Robert Frick : > Today. It was a failure-to-alert auction. East claimed that she would not > have bid 4Cl had she had the proper explanation. The 4Cl bid provided > useful information to South, who then made the winning bid. > > So the question was South's bid if she did not have that information. I > applied the UI procedures, polled two people of similar ability, found > that neither one was making the winning bid, and ruled against South. Who > appealed. > > At the appeal, North claimed that I should not have polled people, I > should have just make a ruling. > > Is that true? No. If the decision isn't crystal clear to you, it'd good advice to poll people. Normally South's peers. > > > My rambling thoughts. The situation is functionally identical to a UI > situation, except that it is a misinformation auction instead. If the 4Cl > bid had been actually withdrawn, it would have been a UI situation. > Instead, the 4Cl bid was hypothetically withdrawn, leaving me in Law 21C3. > > The laws are relatively clear about how to handle the UI situation. For > one, it is irrelevant what the player at the table would have done without > the UI. Instead, the decision is based on what players of similar ability > using the same methods would have done. > > L21C3 is short. When it is too late to change the call, an adjusted score > is awarded when "the director judges that the offending side gained an > advantage from the irregularity". If South would have made the winning > call without the additional information, did the additional information > help her? I am guessing not. > > So the question is what South would have done without the extra > information. Note that this is the exact opposite of the UI laws, where it > is irrelevant what South would have done. > > Why are the laws different on this point? That's not so strange. In general: With MI, you're non-offenders and your opponents offenders. You get the benefit of any doubt. With UI, your opponents are non-offenders and your side (most of the time, but depending on the source of the UI) are offenders. Your opponents get the benefit of any doubt. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > What am I supposed to do. Ask South what she would have bid without the 4C > bid? (That was volunteered to me -- she said she would have made the > winning call anyway.) Am I supposed to just decided if I would have made > the winning call when I already know what the winning call is? If so, > let's make that the law. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 6 22:14:05 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:14:05 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <078F2D23B25D4C5BB276029EF14A02E6@MARVLAPTOP> > Sven Pran: > >>Correct procedure during the clarification period is: >> >>1: Presumed declarer and dummy are jointly responsible for >>correcting on >>their own initiative any misinformation they are aware of having >>been >>given by them to opponents during the auction. I wish the Laws would require other disclosures about the auction, i.e., information not required to be disclosed before play or during the auction. My partnership will frequently bypass a major, especially a weak major, when another bid better describes the hand, especially over a double or as a passed hand (when 1M is non-forcing). While we put this information on our convention card under General Approach ("Weak Majors Often Bypassed), that is voluntary. We also volunteer that information during the clarification period, even though that is merely suggested, not required, by the ACBL. It should be required. There's your Law 94, Richard. I realize enforcement could be a big problem. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From adam at irvine.com Tue Oct 6 22:24:51 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:24:51 -0700 Subject: [BLML] rectifying misinformation versus UI when they are about the same yet the laws so different In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:56:22 EDT." Message-ID: <200910062015.NAA21650@mailhub.irvine.com> Bob Frick wrote: > Today. It was a failure-to-alert auction. East claimed that she would not > have bid 4Cl had she had the proper explanation. The 4Cl bid provided > useful information to South, who then made the winning bid. > > So the question was South's bid if she did not have that information. I > applied the UI procedures, polled two people of similar ability, found > that neither one was making the winning bid, and ruled against South. Who > appealed. > > At the appeal, North claimed that I should not have polled people, I > should have just make a ruling. > > Is that true? No. > My rambling thoughts. The situation is functionally identical to a UI > situation, except that it is a misinformation auction instead. If the 4Cl > bid had been actually withdrawn, it would have been a UI situation. > Instead, the 4Cl bid was hypothetically withdrawn, leaving me in Law 21C3. > > The laws are relatively clear about how to handle the UI situation. For > one, it is irrelevant what the player at the table would have done without > the UI. Instead, the decision is based on what players of similar ability > using the same methods would have done. > > L21C3 is short. When it is too late to change the call, an adjusted score > is awarded when "the director judges that the offending side gained an > advantage from the irregularity". If South would have made the winning > call without the additional information, did the additional information > help her? I am guessing not. > > So the question is what South would have done without the extra > information. Note that this is the exact opposite of the UI laws, where it > is irrelevant what South would have done. > > Why are the laws different on this point? Because you can't go back in time. In a UI case, South knows she has UI, and she has responsibilities that she has to meet when making her next call. In the case you're describing, you're talking about a case where South has already called before attention was drawn to the infraction. You can't put extra responsibilities on South's call after the fact. > What am I supposed to do. Ask South what she would have bid without the 4C > bid? (That was volunteered to me -- she said she would have made the > winning call anyway.) You could ask her, but you don't have to trust her answer. Your job is to determine what might have happened if there had been no MI irregularity and East hadn't bid 4C. If you're 90% certain that South would have made the winning call anyway, then assume she would have. If you think it's 50-50, then in some jurisdictions you could figure out the two scores that would happen if she did or did not make the winning call, and average them (weighted score), and in other jurisdictions, you'd have to assume that least favorable result that is at all probably for the offending side, and therefore assume she wouldn't make the winning call. -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 6 22:30:45 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:30:45 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be><6481CAEA8ED74E74B709DA6767490448@stefanie> <000701ca4437$c05b0100$41110300$@no><0DB1D831434F4C9982257A31AC8D9626@MARVLAPTOP><000301ca44d2$45bc9c10$d135d430$@no><81765380450C4BA08CA2252F4CA5AA97@MARVLAPTOP> <001a01ca4623$717604c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <1C6E45F274894BC18BB77149748C11F1@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" Eric writes: >> As Marv alludes to, however, there are those who do not >> understand the principle at work, and who believe that leading >> face >> up places some restriction or constraint on the leader's partner >> (such as "third hand can't question the auction after the lead is >> faced"). That's a common but serious misunderstanding that must >> be >> stamped out if face-down leads are to work as they were meant to. >> > +=+ I presume it is understood that questions authorized > under Law 41B before the opening lead is faced are no > longer authorized when the lead is faced but questions may > still be asked at the defender's turn to play as Law 20F2 > allows, and as confirmed in the final sentence of 41B? > A careful reading of 20F2 and 41B makes clear that the only proper request for information at this time is in the form "Please explain your auction." Only declarer has the right to question an individual call. While 20F1's reference to L16 applies to any pointed questions (a violation of proper procedure, rarely enforced) during the auction, there is no such L16 reference in 20F2. We can't have a defender questioning individual calls after play has commenced. Further, the language of 20F1 pertaining to "relevant alternative calls and relevant inferences" is not included in 20F2, although a generic Adam could argue that it is to be understood. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 6 22:31:19 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:31:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] rectifying misinformation versus UI when they are about the same yet the laws so different In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <952A24ED-B208-4A69-8FB7-7286A6ABCDE1@starpower.net> On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Today. It was a failure-to-alert auction. East claimed that she > would not > have bid 4Cl had she had the proper explanation. The 4Cl bid provided > useful information to South, who then made the winning bid. > > So the question was South's bid if she did not have that > information. I > applied the UI procedures, polled two people of similar ability, found > that neither one was making the winning bid, and ruled against > South. Who > appealed. > > At the appeal, North claimed that I should not have polled people, I > should have just make a ruling. > > Is that true? If you decide that you would be more comfortable with or confident in your ruling after polling people, then by all means poll people. You're directing; the players aren't. There are no specific directorial guidelines for the club level (at least in the ACBL), and your job is to make the best ruling you can however you can. Oh, yeah, and find a polite way of letting North know that you don't need punters telling you how to do your job. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 6 23:02:28 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:02:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 00:45 To: Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Question on the 2018 Law 94 -> > > If you could add a Law 94 dealing with one (and only one) topic > to the 2018 Lawbook, what would that single topic be? > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 With respect to 2009L94: L94 Review of Law Events that disrupt the progress of a hand for which the laws fail to resolve in a satisfactory manner (or apparently fail to resolve) should be brought to the attention of the WBF via L94 at wbf.com. So that the event might examined for the purpose of reviewing the construction of law, documentation should be provided that includes the complete set of facts (agreed and disputed), how the event was resolved, the reasoning why the law failed to provide a satisfactory resolution, and contact information for all parties involved in the event and its resolution. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 6 23:56:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:56:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1C6E45F274894BC18BB77149748C11F1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Victor Weisskopf (1908-2002), American physicist: "It was absolutely marvellous working for Pauli. You could ask him anything. There was no worry that he would think a particular question was stupid, since he thought _all_ questions were stupid." Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I presume it is understood that questions authorized >>under Law 41B before the opening lead is faced are no >>longer authorized when the lead is faced but questions may >>still be asked at the defender's turn to play as Law 20F2 >>allows, and as confirmed in the final sentence of 41B? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Marvin French: >A careful reading of 20F2 and 41B makes clear that the only >proper request for information at this time is in the form >"Please explain your auction." Only declarer has the right >to question an individual call. Richard Hills: Incorrect. The final line of Law 41B, "The defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play", merely means that a defender's question is UI to her partner, thus may restrict her partner's choice amongst logical alternatives, NOT that the initial asking of the question is illegal. And, of course, it would be silly to write "declarer (subject to Law 16)", since declarer cannot give UI to dummy -- hence the Ali-Hills partnership uses the Cooper Echo convention. :-) :-) Marvin French: >While 20F1's reference to L16 applies to any pointed >questions (a violation of proper procedure, Richard Hills: Incorrect. Law 20F3 allows any player, declarer or defender, to ask about a single call (again with the restriction that a question about a single call is UI to one's partner, thus may restrict partner's choice amongst logical alternatives). Marvin French: >rarely enforced) during the auction, there is no such L16 >reference in 20F2. We can't have a defender questioning >individual calls after play has commenced. > >Further, the language of 20F1 pertaining to "relevant >alternative calls and relevant inferences" is not included >in 20F2, although a generic Adam could argue that it is to >be understood. Richard Hills: And a generic Adam (Beneschan?) would be correct. Law 20F2 includes this space-saving final line: "Explanations should be given on a _like basis_ to [Law 20F]1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained." 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 Oct 7 02:30:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:30:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Monty Python's Flying Circus -> Interviewer: Stig, I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head to the floor. Stig: No, no. Never, never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to give his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me. Interviewer: But the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing your head to the floor. Stig: (pause) Oh yeah, well - he did that, yeah. Interviewer: Why? Stig: Well he had to, didn't he? I mean, be fair, there was nothing else he could do. I mean, I had transgressed the unwritten law. Interviewer: What had you done? Stig: Er... well he never told me that, but he gave me his word that it was the case, and that's good enough for me with old Dinsy. I mean, he didn't *want* to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off. There's nothing Dinsdale wouldn't do for you. Marv French on the Unwritten Principle (16th September): >I have always espoused the principle that when one's partner would >have no conceivable illegal way of using partnership experience >related to one's action, then that experience need not be >disclosed. [snip] >Declarer, missing four trumps to the QJ, plays to the ace in dummy, >LHO playing a quack. "Does your partner usually, or very seldom, >play that card when holding queen-jack?" does not require an answer >even if partner does not randomly select a card from QJ. > >In other words, if you can't make use of such information from >partnership experience, there is no requirement to disclose it. It >is not "special" information. Richard Hills on the Written Law: If one defender plays a "cunning" Q from QJ 100% of the time, then that defender's play of the jack is inferentially a singleton, thus may Usefully help the other defender with a "special" count of the hand if declarer chooses to delay a second round of trumps. That is, I argue that any implicit partnership understanding which may Usefully help one side Necessarily could sometimes Usefully help the other side, so even by Marv's restrictive definition any implicit partnership understanding could be defined as a Law 40B1(a) "special" partnership understanding. On the other hand ... Can non-bridge actions performed at the bridge table be "special" partnership understandings? For example, the Congratulatory Jack (as a defender) or the Cooper Echo (as a declarer) or the Beer Card (as any non-teetotal player)? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 7 03:25:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:25:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01ca3770$7dcfb6b0$796f2410$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >The Director is never supposed to play the cards for a non-offender. H.M.S. Pinafore: What never? No, never! What never? Hardly ever! Sven Pran: >...Only when the non-offending player claims or suspects that he is >insufficiently compensated by the "standard rectification" do I >examine the board for further rectification under Law 64C... Law 12A: "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..." Law 84D: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. **If in his judgement** it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12)." Richard Hills: Note that Law 84D does **not** say "If in the non-offending side's judgement". On a tangential issue, why this emphasis on the non-offending side? As a member of the offending side I have frequently requested an adjusted score against my side's interests to comply with Law 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." 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 Oct 7 05:27:24 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:27:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501ca3c43$0c9dbd20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Ernest Bevin, British Foreign Secretary 1945-1951: "If you open that Pandora's Box, you never know what Trojan 'orses will jump out." When a NBO have an option we choose the option selected by the EBL. For the French TDs it is very clear that the Laws must be the same everywhere in the world. We are disappointed because the regulations for the use of the bidding boxes and the screens depend on each NBO. We think that it must be a part of the Laws... Jean-Fran?ois +=+ Dear Jean-Francois, The problem is that it would be a Herculean task to obtain agreement among major interested parties as to the contents of such appendices to the laws. Even the EBL does not conform exactly to the WBF in regard to such matters. Realistically the best we can hope is that RAs will pick up the WBF regulations as models for their own. Incidentally some work was done on the Systems Policy in Sao Paulo. Something to look out for on the web sites. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The default option in the current Lawbook is an outmoded assumption that spoken bidding is being used. See Law 19A2 and Law 19B2. Bidding boxes are merely indirectly mentioned in Law 18F: "Regulating Authorities may authorize different methods of making calls." However, for the 2018 Lawbook it would be a straightforward matter to rewrite Laws 17 to 19 in conformance with the WBF bidding box regulation, but to retain Law 18F so that RAs could design different bidding box regulations (or eschew the use of bidding boxes for written bidding, as is still the practice in many Aussie bridge clubs). Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 7 06:05:30 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:05:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >there it is merely a separate item, not integral with the 2007 Laws. Richard Hills: Jose's Foreword, The Preface and The Index are defined by The Introduction as no way Jose integral to The Lawbook. The Introduction, The Definitions, The 93 Laws and Their Footnotes are defined by The Introduction as exclusively integral to The Lawbook. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 7 06:55:04 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 21:55:04 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 References: Message-ID: <57DBE313D75A439EB928C5B95A2CA7E0@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > >> Question on the 2018 Law 94 -> (from Richard Hills) >> >> If you could add a Law 94 dealing with one (and only one) topic >> to the 2018 Lawbook, what would that single topic be? > > It would explicitly specify a single body authorized to promulgate > official interpretations and guidance with respect to the laws, > and > require that body to make a record of their formal actions > available > to the public at large at least annually. This needs supplementation. Even in this electronic age, decision-making and communication from TD to NBOLC to WBFLC and back needs a step-by-step protocol, "going through channels," with documentation and public disclosure at every step. A TD will sometimes feel the need to interpret a law, rightly or wrongly. That interpretation stands for his/her realm pending approval by the NBOLC, to whom it is immediately transmitted. If approved, as-is or modified, the interpretation stands for the NBO pending approval or modification by the WBFLC. A request for guidance follows the same path. Care must be taken by TDs and NBOs not to create laws, but only to tentatively interpret them. Adding "had the irregularity not occurred" to L12C(e)(ii) was labeled an interpretation but it was law creation, which only the WBFLC may do. It is not enough for LCs to publish these things in their minutes, as that does not constitute "promulgation." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 7 07:59:17 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 22:59:17 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > Marvin French: > >>A careful reading of 20F2 and 41B makes clear that the only >>proper request for information at this time is in the form >>"Please explain your auction." Only declarer has the right >>to question an individual call. > > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect. The final line of Law 41B, "The defenders > (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to > request explanations throughout the play period, each at his > own turn to play", merely means that a defender's question is > UI to her partner, thus may restrict her partner's choice > amongst logical alternatives, NOT that the initial asking of > the question is illegal. The "explanations" requested by defenders are of the opposing *auction*, per L20F2. I overlooked the addition of L20F3, which excuses the violation of procedure prescribed in L20F2. If defenders can ask the same sort of questions as declarer, why did L20F2 differentiate between them? And don't say it was because of L16, which came as a footnoted afterthought in the 1997 Laws, now moved into L20F3. L20F2: ...either defender can ask for an explanation of the auction...declarer may ask for an explanation of a defender's call or play. Those of us who like to follow correct procedure will not take advantage of L20F3, which means as defenders we ask for an explanation of the auction, not "how many spades did he promise?" Within the context of an explanation, if the desired information is not forthcoming then further questioning is in order. It is only flagrant examples that get application of L16. Most UI from such questioning of individual calls goes scot-free. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com > >> >>Further, the language of 20F1 pertaining to "relevant >>alternative calls and relevant inferences" is not included >>in 20F2, although a generic Adam could argue that it is to >>be understood. > > Richard Hills: > > And a generic Adam (Beneschan?) would be correct. Law 20F2 > includes this space-saving final line: > > "Explanations should be given on a _like basis_ to [Law 20F]1 > and by the partner of the player whose action is explained." Yes, an addition to the previous L20F2 that I didn't see, sorry. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 7 08:09:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:09:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Question on the 2018 Law 94 -> > >If you could add a Law 94 dealing with one (and only one) topic >to the 2018 Lawbook, what would that single topic be? Modified from original document at: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/ABDA_Code_of_Ethics.pdf Law 94 - Code of Conduct for Directors A. Justice Seen to be Done A Tournament Director should aim to achieve equity for all players at all times and in all situations. Justice should not only be done, but it should also be seen to be done, so therefore: 1. It is desirable for a Tournament Director to carry a copy of The Fabulous Law Book with her when called to a table to give a ruling during play; if she fails to do so, a copy should always be readily available for reference during session time. 2. Whenever she gives a ruling based on the direct application of Law, a Tournament Director, if requested, should be prepared to read the relevant clause or clauses from The Fabulous Law Book. 3. A Tournament Director should endeavour to ensure that her rulings are fully explained to and understood by the players without them being required to ask the reasons for her rulings (but see F below). B. Doubtful Director When in any doubt about a ruling, a Tournament Director must be prepared to seek advice from other experienced directors or (when appropriate) experienced players. C. Judge Dread 1. Before making a logical alternatives bridge judgement ruling, a Tournament Director should, if possible, poll players of the same class as the recipient of the unauthorised information. 2. Before making an analytical bridge judgement ruling, a Tournament Director should, if possible: (a) seek advice from another director and/or (b) seek advice from uninvolved, experienced players of an appropriate standard and/or (c) seek advice from a computer program (for example, "Deep Finesse") if available, but remembering that the computer program may sometimes provide unrealistic analysis (if, for example, the computer program plays double-dummy). D. Justice Delayed is not Justice Denied It will often be appropriate to delay giving a final ruling on bridge judgement decisions - particularly for a playing Director - until the end of the session. E. The Play's the Thing, Wherein I'll Catch the Conscience of the King When a playing Tournament Director has a ruling in which her side is involved, she must ensure that no suggestion of bias is possible. Whenever practicable, she should apply Law 81D to delegate the ruling to an Assistant Director. F. Faster Than a Speeding Bullet To "ensure the orderly progress of the game" (Law 81C1), a Tournament Director shall always give a prompt ruling when called to the table in technical ("book") situations, even though it may not be possible for her to explain the ruling fully at the time on the basis of the relevant Law(s). In such cases, the Tournament Director is responsible for confirming the correctness of her ruling and communicating the reasons for the ruling with the players as soon as practicable (see A3 above). G. To Err is Truman If a Tournament Director realises that she has given an incorrect ruling, she shall do all in her power to promptly correct that ruling (see Law 82C). H. The Final Problem A Tournament Director must be: 1. impartial and not exhibit favouritism towards any player or players. 2. courteous at all times in all dealings with players. Richard Hills: A Canberra bridge former novice, now already improved to semi- expert level, is continuing to improve her game by flying all over Australia to play in all major bridge tournaments. But there is one major bridge tournament that she will never attend again -- its incumbent Director repeatedly infracts Law 94H2. :-( :-( 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 Wed Oct 7 09:08:22 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 00:08:22 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appea Committee Procedures In-Reply-To: <8E0DBB199AEF490DB6BF8056353B87EB@MARVLAPTOP> References: <8E0DBB199AEF490DB6BF8056353B87EB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <694eadd40910070008s34db483dm9548b11216628a10@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > >From the Management Report on Remuneration of NABC Volunteers, in > regard to the NABC Appeals Committee: > > "The committee chairman and the two assistant chairmen get a room at > the host hotel and per diem for the duration of the NABC. Free plays > are given to the co-chairmen." > > Got that from the ACBL web site. I don't ?know how many people that > covers, as I can't find the NAC organizational structure. Adam? 1. I'll reply more promptly if you Cc me or include my full name in the text of your post. I don't read every message posted to the list -- not even close. I saw this one by chance. 2. Please include links when you reference documents. I'm guessing you mean this one: http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%208%20-%20APD%20-%202.pdf It's undated but I think it must be 20 years old or so. It refers to an honorarium of $9 for A/C members. It's been $10 since 1992 or earlier. 3. The NAC no longer has assistant chairmen. You can find our structure and roster in the first Friday's daily bulletin at every NABC. It's on page 4 here: http://www.acbl.org/nabc/bulletins/2009/02/1/ -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 7 15:25:09 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:25:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0B08F0BE-B8D8-4E31-83EA-20600C36EC15@starpower.net> On Oct 7, 2009, at 1:59 AM, Marvin L French wrote: > Richard Hills wrote: > >> Marvin French: >> >>> A careful reading of 20F2 and 41B makes clear that the only >>> proper request for information at this time is in the form >>> "Please explain your auction." Only declarer has the right >>> to question an individual call. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Incorrect. The final line of Law 41B, "The defenders >> (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to >> request explanations throughout the play period, each at his >> own turn to play", merely means that a defender's question is >> UI to her partner, thus may restrict her partner's choice >> amongst logical alternatives, NOT that the initial asking of >> the question is illegal. > > The "explanations" requested by defenders are of the opposing > *auction*, per L20F2. > > I overlooked the addition of L20F3, which excuses the violation of > procedure prescribed in L20F2. If defenders can ask the same sort of > questions as declarer, why did L20F2 differentiate between them? And > don't say it was because of L16, which came as a footnoted > afterthought in the 1997 Laws, now moved into L20F3. > > L20F2: ...either defender can ask for an explanation of the > auction...declarer may ask for an explanation of a defender's call > or play. > > Those of us who like to follow correct procedure will not take > advantage of L20F3, which means as defenders we ask for an > explanation of the auction, not "how many spades did he promise?" > Within the context of an explanation, if the desired information is > not forthcoming then further questioning is in order. > > It is only flagrant examples that get application of L16. Most UI > from such questioning of individual calls goes scot-free. L20F appears to make a binary distinction between asking about "the opponents' prior auction" ("Please explain your auction") and asking about "a single call" ("What did 3S mean?"). But what of specific questions of style, that do not fall neatly into either category? For example, given the variety of styles played locally as "standard American", I frequently find myself asking something like, "Which bid established the game force?" Is that an inquiry about the auction, or an inquiry about a specific call? And should the answer to that question really matter? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 7 18:27:49 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:27:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13312412.1254932869667.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Question on single-dummy declarer play -> > > WEST EAST > AT2 Q9743 > AK87 5 > K9 AQ8765 > AKQ7 2 > > As West you are declarer in 6NT after an uncontested auction. > > How do you plan the play after: > (a) a heart opening lead? > (b) a club opening lead? At IMPs, win the first trick, then play a low spade towards dummy, intending to finesse the 9. At MPs, one first has to look at alternative contracts other tables might reach, and then at possibilities to make an overtrick with alternative lines. In this hand, quite a few pairs will not reach slam, and some will reach 6D rather than 6 NT. 6 NT thus is the highest scoring contract, and overtricks are much less important than making 6NT. Even after a H lead, the chances for making an overtricks (cash S and H tops, then D, hope for a squeeze) are not that good, while the risk of going down due to a 4-1 or 5-0 D split is significant. Thus, even at MPs I play a low spade towards dummy on trick two. > Question on the 2018 Law 94 -> > > If you could add a Law 94 dealing with one (and only one) topic > to the 2018 Lawbook, what would that single topic be? L 94. Smoking is not permitted Thomas Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 7 23:32:43 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:32:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rectifying misinformation versus UI when they are about the same yet the laws so different In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ACD08FB.5010407@nhcc.net> Robert Frick wrote: > Today. It was a failure-to-alert auction. East claimed that she would not > have bid 4Cl had she had the proper explanation. The 4Cl bid provided > useful information to South, who then made the winning bid. > > So the question was South's bid if she did not have that information. I > applied the UI procedures, If the MI is discovered after it's too late to change the 4C call, the ruling has nothing to do with UI (though the result may end up the same). What you want is to find the "likely" and "at all probable" results if the irregularity (the MI) had not occurred. Outside the ACBL, these can be the weighted combination of multiple results, but that's irrelevant here. > polled two people of similar ability, found > that neither one was making the winning bid, and ruled against South. Who > appealed. > > At the appeal, North claimed that I should not have polled people, I > should have just make a ruling. Best advice is to consult on all judgment rulings. I'm not sure this is widely known in the ACBL. You also have to consider that the MI gave UI to the partner of the MI-giver. That might or might not be important, but you should at least look at it. > If the 4Cl > bid had been actually withdrawn, it would have been a UI situation. Yes. > Instead, the 4Cl bid was hypothetically withdrawn, leaving me in Law 21C3. 21B3, I think, but anyway not L16. > it is irrelevant what the player at the table would have done No, that's exactly what -- in theory -- you have to determine. > Instead, the decision is based on what players of similar ability > using the same methods would have done. In practice, though, this last is the only way you will ever be able to make a ruling, unless you brought both your mind-reading cap and your time-turner with you. (You would need to read South's mind _before_ she got the information from the 4C bid.) > So the question is what South would have done without the extra > information. Note that this is the exact opposite of the UI laws, Yes. > What am I supposed to do. Ask South what she would have bid without the 4C > bid? You can ask, but the answer has little weight. Most of us can make the right call or play once we see all the hands, and it's all too easy to be convinced that one would have done so "at the table." You have to guess what _really_ was likely (and "at all probable"), and the best way to do that is to consult. You should ideally ask not only what action the pollees would take but also why and whether there are other actions they would consider. That will give you an idea whether the winning action was findable or not. But in the end, it is a judgment ruling, and those are often difficult. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 7 23:01:18 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:01:18 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <72CAE80EB10948A1ACC8D41F1CEE707C@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > Marv French on the Unwritten Principle (16th September): > >>I have always espoused the principle that when one's partner would >>have no conceivable illegal way of using partnership experience >>related to one's action, then that experience need not be >>disclosed. > > [snip] > >>Declarer, missing four trumps to the QJ, plays to the ace in >>dummy, >>LHO playing a quack. "Does your partner usually, or very seldom >>play that card when holding queen-jack?" does not require an >>answer >>even if partner does not randomly select a card from QJ. >> >>In other words, if you can't make use of such information from >>partnership experience, there is no requirement to disclose it. It >>is not "special" information. > > Richard Hills on the Written Law: > > If one defender plays a "cunning" Q from QJ 100% of the time, then > that defender's play of the jack is inferentially a singleton, > thus > may Usefully help the other defender with a "special" count of the > hand if declarer chooses to delay a second round of trumps. You had to stretch for that one, but I still would not answer declarer's question. You have now ventured outside the realm of implicit understandings that are not useful to me into the realm of those that are. > That is, I argue that any implicit partnership understanding which > may Usefully help one side Necessarily could sometimes Usefully > help > the other side, so even by Marv's restrictive definition any > implicit > partnership understanding could be defined as a Law 40B1(a) > "special" > partnership understanding. I realize that the word "special" has come to be meaningless, so that some say everything I know about partner's bidding or play is "special." I don't buy that. L40B1(a) says an RA may designate certain partnership understandings as "special partnership understandings." As of this date the ACBL has not applied that to falsecard situations. There is a set of partnership understandings, all implicit and useful to me, not requiring disclosure because they are not "special." These include partner's falsecarding tendencies, degree of aggression/passivity in bidding, defensive skill or lack of it, and so on. L40B1(b) discriminates between the set of total partnership understandings, implicit or explicit, and a subset of those understandings that are special. The two sets are not identical. Another set of understandings that do not require disclosure (except for Alertable items and things on the convention card) are those whose meaning would be understood by a large majority of players in the tournament [L40B1(a), where "special" is defined]. L406(a): When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all *special* [emphasis mine] 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. As my favorite partner Morris Portugal told me (paraphrased) when I was questioned: "We have to disclose our special partnership agreements but we don't have to teach bridge." 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 Wed Oct 7 23:08:34 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:08:34 -0700 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <6DF1BD856688443AB829224BB3EBB09A@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > On a tangential issue, why this emphasis on the non-offending > side? > As a member of the offending side I have frequently requested an > adjusted score against my side's interests to comply with Law > 79A2: > > "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick > that > his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his > opponents > could not lose." A current member of the ACBL BoD, a pro then playing with a customer, accepted my partner's concession of a trick when the trick could not be lost. As an inattentive dummy I missed that. Later the pro told me, "If they give, I take." Not a very good role model. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 7 23:53:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:53:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <72CAE80EB10948A1ACC8D41F1CEE707C@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Marvin French asserted: >...There is a set of partnership understandings, all implicit >and useful to me, not requiring disclosure because they are not >"special." These include partner's falsecarding tendencies... Richard Hills refutes: Incorrect. This very issue of defensive cardplay tendencies was discussed by Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World Editorial. He stated that if those particular cardplay tendencies were useful to the other defender by creating a chain of positive and negative inferences, then the declarer was also entitled to be informed so that the declarer could also develop a chain of positive and negative inferences. It seems that Marv incorrectly believes that only "special partnership understandings" need to be disclosed, and that other partnership understandings need not to be disclosed. This is a misunderstanding of Law 40B2(a): "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding. It may prescribe a System Card with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership's understandings, and regulate its use. The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods. It may vary 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 (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." Richard Hills refutes: So a Regulating Authority may not "disallow, or allow conditionally" any non-special partnership understanding, but a Regulating Authority may prescribe "methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods", both special and also non-special. For example, the ABF policy is to use a System Card as the first stage of disclosure of defenders' methods, but the ABF policy also permits declarer to seek more detail by questions. Indeed, the Ali-Hills System Card includes in the box for honour leads versus notrump the single word "Journalist", thus indicating to a 3NT declarer unfamiliar with Journalist honour leads that a supplementary question may be useful. Although the ABF has not bothered to define Journalist honour leads as a "special partnership understanding", I nevertheless give full and frank explanations of its idiosyncrasies. 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 Oct 8 02:42:57 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:42:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marv asked: >...If defenders can ask the same sort of questions as declarer, >why did L20F2 differentiate between them? >... >L20F2: ...either defender can ask for an explanation of the >auction...declarer may ask for an explanation of a defender's >call or play. Richard responds: Dummy (Dorothy) holds a doubleton 42 of clubs. During the play, declarer (Richard) cashes the ace of clubs and carefully calls for the 4 (not the 2) to be played. RHO to Dorothy: Does Richard play Cooper Echoes? Dorothy to RHO: Oh yes; and he also plays Psychic Cooper Echoes. Marv is correct; RHO's question is illegal under the current edition of The Fabulous Law Book. Obviously a major error which the ACBL should fix by unilaterally amending Law 20F2. :-) :-) Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 8 03:02:47 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:02:47 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Committee Procedures References: <8E0DBB199AEF490DB6BF8056353B87EB@MARVLAPTOP> <694eadd40910070008s34db483dm9548b11216628a10@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: From: "Adam Wildavsky" Marvin L French wrote: > >From the Management Report on Remuneration of NABC Volunteers, in > regard to the NABC Appeals Committee: > > "The committee chairman and the two assistant chairmen get a room > at > the host hotel and per diem for the duration of the NABC. Free > plays > are given to the co-chairmen." > > Got that from the ACBL web site. I don't know how many people that > covers, as I can't find the NAC organizational structure. Adam? >1. I'll reply more promptly if you Cc me or include my full name in the text of your post. I don't read every message posted to the list -- not even close. I saw this one by chance. Okay, cc from now on. 2. Please include links when you reference documents. I'm guessing you mean this one: http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%208%20-%20APD%20-%202.pdf It's undated but I think it must be 20 years old or so. It refers to an honorarium of $9 for A/C members. It's been $10 since 1992 or earlier. I'm just trying to find out if the ACBL's remuneration for AC members and leader(s) is rightfully characterized as "paucity" by Michael Huston. My request for this information from other NBOs resulted in just two responses, one from Sweden and one from England. Neither country pays a penny to those serving on appeals for NBO events. So much for "paucity." Adam, I assume that only you get more than the $10 remuneration given to those who serve on an AC, is that right? The BoD minutes of March 3-6 2009 at the Detroit NABC say: "The chairman of the NABC Appeals Committee will be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with official committee business." That's pretty vague. I found another undated page created 11 Sept 2008 on the ACBL web site that is more specific: Compensation for the Chairman and Co-Chairmen of NABC Tournament Committees, only while serving at the tournament, shall be as follows. 1. Each shall receive a hotel room 2. Each shall receive per diem (at the rate paid to tournament directors) 3. Each shall be allowed free play privileges. Is that current? > The NAC no longer has assistant chairmen. Well, that's a saving.of some $2400 or so per chairman, if 1. 2. and 3. are in effect. >You can find our structure and roster in the first Friday's daily bulletin at every NABC. It's on page 4 here: http://www.acbl.org/nabc/bulletins/2009/02/1/ This important committee should be listed on the ACBL web site, not merely in NABC Daily Bulletins. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 8 03:22:19 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:22:19 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <023EF907B8744BA181EAB268D345228A@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills: > Marvin French: > > [snip] > >>there it is merely a separate item, not integral with the 2007 >>Laws. > > Richard Hills: > > Jose's Foreword, The Preface and The Index are defined by The > Introduction > as no way Jose integral to The Lawbook. > > The Introduction, The Definitions, The 93 Laws and Their Footnotes > are > defined by The Introduction as exclusively integral to The > Lawbook. Did I say otherwise? Jose's Foreword is an optional item for those printing "translations" of the Laws, but its latter part (which includes a WBF copyright notice) is requested by Jose to be included regardless. The French incorporated the entire Foreword, while the ACBL and the EBU ignored it completely. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 8 04:17:13 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:17:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <023EF907B8744BA181EAB268D345228A@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859): "History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies." Richard Hills: >>Jose's Foreword, The Preface and The Index are defined by The >>Introduction as no way Jose integral to The Lawbook. >> >>The Introduction, The Definitions, The 93 Laws and Their Footnotes >>are defined by The Introduction as exclusively integral to The >>Lawbook. Marvin French: >Did I say otherwise? Jose's Foreword is an optional item for those >printing "translations" of the Laws, but its latter part (which >includes a WBF copyright notice) is requested by Jose to be >included regardless. The French incorporated the entire Foreword, >while the ACBL and the EBU ignored it completely. Richard Hills: The initial drafters of the Duplicate Laws, the Whist Club of New York and the Portland Club of London, created copyrights which have not yet expired. The Whist Club of New York's copyright extended throughout the Western Hemisphere, plus The Philippines. Many years ago The Whist Club of New York gave its unexpired copyright to the ACBL. The Portland Club's copyright used to extend to the area of the British Commonwealth past and present (other than the Western Hemisphere), the Continent of Africa, Spain, Portugal and all English speaking countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. However, it is possible that nowadays The Portland Club is merely enforcing its unexpired copyright in only the territory of the United Kingdom. Hence the ACBL and the EBU were correct to ignore Jose's Foreword completely, since Jose invalidly attempted a no way Jose transfer of unexpired copyrights to the WBF. 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 Oct 8 07:55:57 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:55:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince": "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new." Larry Bennett, August 2004: [snip] >I gave them the ebu simple system cc, and told them >to play that until they provided fully documented >meanings to all their "named" conventions. >They couldn't be bothered to do that, and won the >event. > >Ho hum >Larry John (MadDog) Probst, August 2004: Hmm. If I go to a major tournament after the first day and I usually just go for a pick-up one-day game between TD appointments, then I look around for a pair of abandoned convention cards. With printers and laminators in common everyday use there are always plenty lying around. The laminated ones make good coffee coasters I've found and amending the names is a lot easier than having to agree a system. I've never thought this approach was a particular handicap, and when I get busted I recommend the TD consult with the original owner to find out what my call should have meant. It's fairly easy to play these systems as well, because there are always half a dozen things that make one shudder, so it's impossible to get them wrong. I'm always surprised how well one does relatively with this laid back approach, when compared with playing with regular partners where one does have some quite profound agreements. 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 Thu Oct 8 09:59:39 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:59:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] John Maddog Probst In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8 Oct 2009, at 06:55, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > John (MadDog) Probst, August 2004: This seems like a good opportunity to update people about John. He is much improved, though his eyesight is still poor. He gets around with assistance and a white stick, but manages to occupy himself at home cooking. Last week he came to play in the Young Chelsea's novice duplicate - a good choice for a first game because the players are slow enough that it gives him time to look at each card individually to build up a picture of his hand. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091008/51c07e73/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 10:08:33 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:08:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] John Maddog Probst In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/10/8 Gordon Rainsford : > > On 8 Oct 2009, at 06:55, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > John (MadDog) Probst, August 2004: > > This seems like a good opportunity to update people about John. He is much > improved, though his eyesight is still poor. He gets around with assistance > and a white stick, but manages to occupy himself at home?cooking. Last week > he came to play in the Young Chelsea's novice duplicate - a good choice for > a first game because the players are slow enough that it gives him time to > look at each card individually to build up a picture of his hand. > Gordon Rainsford That's good to hear, I really hope he continues his improvement. Give him my greetings, will you? -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 8 12:16:57 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:16:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] John Maddog Probst In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <29935945.1254997017653.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 8 Oct 2009, at 06:55, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > John (MadDog) Probst, August 2004: > > This seems like a good opportunity to update people about John. He is > much improved, though his eyesight is still poor. He gets around with > assistance and a white stick, but manages to occupy himself at home > cooking. Last week he came to play in the Young Chelsea's novice > duplicate - a good choice for a first game because the players are > slow enough that it gives him time to look at each card individually > to build up a picture of his hand. Many thanks for the good news, Gordon. I am glad to hear that MadDog can count to 13 again. Thomas Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 8 19:01:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:01:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] John Maddog Probst References: <29935945.1254997017653.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000f01ca4838$fc5f6880$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] John Maddog Probst I am glad to hear that MadDog can count to 13 again. Thomas +=+ Again ? +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 8 19:56:32 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:56:32 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: > Marvin French asserted: > >>...There is a set of partnership understandings, all implicit >>and useful to me, not requiring disclosure because they are not >>"special." These include partner's falsecarding tendencies... > > Richard Hills refutes: > > Incorrect. This very issue of defensive cardplay tendencies > was discussed by Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World Editorial. He > stated that if those particular cardplay tendencies were useful > to the other defender by creating a chain of positive and > negative inferences, then the declarer was also entitled to be > informed so that the declarer could also develop a chain of > positive and negative inferences. So I reveal before taking cards from the board that my partner routinely plays the queen from QJ. Then he "falsecards" by playing the jack, as permitted by Law 40C. After that I must inform opponents that he sometimes plays the queen and sometimes the jack from QJ. This is getting ridiculous. I inquired about this matter with Kaplan in a letter describing an auction where I opened 1C and my partner responded 3S, passed around to LHO (a Life Master, at a time when that meant something). LHO now demanded to know the meaning of the 3S bid. Going by Law 75C, I answered that all I knew about that bid came from my general knowledge and experience, not from any *special* (n.b.) partnership agreement. The TD said I must explain the bid, so I quoted the Law to him from memory. He then told my LHO, "It wasn't Alerted so it has to be natural, weak" and walked away. That was Max Hardy. Edgar replied (in a postcard I still have) that he would vote "not guilty," but hoped I would explain the bid to someone from a foreign country or to an inexperienced player. Of course I would. > > It seems that Marv incorrectly believes that only "special > partnership understandings" need to be disclosed, and that other > partnership understandings need not to be disclosed. This is a > misunderstanding of Law 40B2(a): > > (snip of the law) I thought I made clear that I meant partnership understandings not shown on the convention card and not the subject of Alert requirements. Of course formal RA disclosure requirements (Alerts, Pre-Alerts, convention card) must be met. > > Richard Hills refutes: > > Indeed, the Ali-Hills System Card includes in the box for > honour leads versus notrump the single word "Journalist", thus > indicating to a 3NT declarer unfamiliar with Journalist honour > leads that a supplementary question may be useful. Although the > ABF has not bothered to define Journalist honour leads as a > "special partnership understanding", I nevertheless give full > and frank explanations of its idiosyncrasies. Letting your partner know you haven't forgotten the meaning of his lead and embarassing those who are unfamiliar with Journalist. The ACBL rightly discourages the use of a name for an agreement (with a few exceptions such as Stayman), so the convention card lists all the honor combinations in two columns, one for suit leads and the other for notrump leads, with "standard" cards in bold. Players must circle a non-standard card lead. The honor combinations are supplemented by check boxes to indicate length leads against both suit and notrump contracts (4th best, 3rd/5th, etc), and leads from small cards. The last has the only Alertable agreement, leading low from xx, so the lower card is a red x, and a player circling that card instead of the higher one must Pre-Alert that practice before his partnership takes a hand from the board. The ACBL gets some things right. Richard, here's a free tip for you: Journalist leads second-best from an interior sequence. The standard lead is slightly superior, as I demonstrate in the Appendix to the "Defense Handbook" on my web site. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 8 22:38:05 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:38:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3BA17101-0A76-426C-99ED-DA48C519694D@starpower.net> On Oct 8, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > I inquired about this matter with Kaplan in a letter describing an > auction where I opened 1C and my partner responded 3S, passed around > to LHO (a Life Master, at a time when that meant something). LHO now > demanded to know the meaning of the 3S bid. Going by Law 75C, I > answered that all I knew about that bid came from my general > knowledge and experience, not from any *special* (n.b.) partnership > agreement. The TD said I must explain the bid, so I quoted the Law > to him from memory. He then told my LHO, "It wasn't Alerted so it > has to be natural, weak" and walked away. That was Max Hardy. > > Edgar replied (in a postcard I still have) that he would vote "not > guilty," but hoped I would explain the bid to someone from a foreign > country or to an inexperienced player. Of course I would. I would like to nominate Marv for this year's Secretary Bird Memorial Bridge Lawyering Award. Let me brief the case: On being asked the meaning of a natural, weak bid, Marv lectured his Life Master LHO about the formal requirements of L75C, and refused to answer the question. After what I suspect may have been a few more words back and forth, someone (I'm guessing it was a by-now irate LHO) called the Director. Having left whatever else he might have been doing (possibly even productively) and arrived at Marv's table, the Director presumably had the situation explained to him, perhaps with some additional representations or discussion, by both sides, at which point the Director took it upon himself to inform LHO, after offering an (admittedly brief) justification for his conclusion, that Marv's bid was natural, weak. Of course, Marv could have instead spoken exactly two words -- "natural, weak" -- and none of the above would have occurred. There is absolutely no doubt that Marv was correct about the law and entirely within his rights. I suspect, however, that most of us would have preferred to spend that time and effort playing bridge. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 8 22:50:59 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:50:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> A few years ago, a long-time part-time partner and I both forgot our convention cards when playing in the Wed night Masters game at our local club. I said, "Hey, let's try playing with no conventions whatsoever!" That we did and came in second. It was a very relaxing game, quite enjoyable. I tested that idea the next week with another long-time part-time partner. We were well above average, something like 55%. With both partners I had well-established agreements about standard bidding, which is much more important than conventions: -- Bids: forcing, invitational, or weak? -- Overcall quality -- Preemptive bid quality -- Doubles, takeout or business? And so forth. Both partners refused to repeat the experiment, feeling they could not do without the many conventions. My wife agrees with them, unfortunately. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 8 23:30:37 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:30:37 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 References: <3BA17101-0A76-426C-99ED-DA48C519694D@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > Of course, Marv could have instead spoken exactly two words -- > "natural, weak" -- and none of the above would have occurred. > There is absolutely no doubt that Marv was correct about the law > and > entirely within his rights. > > I suspect, however, that most of us would have preferred to spend > that time and effort playing bridge. You jump to the conclusion that my attitude was customary, which it was not. My opponent was a snippy woman with thousands of masterpoints who should have known what an unAlerted 3S bid meant. I had been getting tired of the myriad of such questions from people of that ilk, too lazy to learn the game and expecting me to teach it to them. With pleasant or inexperienced players I have always answered any question, whether or not I have to. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From adam at tameware.com Thu Oct 8 23:34:14 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:34:14 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Committee Procedures In-Reply-To: References: <8E0DBB199AEF490DB6BF8056353B87EB@MARVLAPTOP> <694eadd40910070008s34db483dm9548b11216628a10@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40910081434l1268e28p26777a7919b76e6@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > I'm just trying to find out if the ACBL's remuneration for AC members and > leader(s) is rightfully characterized as "paucity" by Michael Huston. My > request for this information from other NBOs resulted in just two responses, > one from Sweden and one from England. Neither country pays a penny to those > serving on appeals for NBO events. So much for "paucity." > I don't think your conclusion follows. Compensation in Sweden and England may also be a "paucity." I believe compensation for ACBL AC members ought to be increased. The battle I've fought, though, is to keep player committees around at all. Over the past decade we've survived three ACBL Board of Directors motions to eliminate player committees in favor of TD panels. Adam, I assume that only you get more than the $10 remuneration given to > those who serve on an AC, is that right? The NAC Chair and the NAC Director get expenses reimbursed, though we don't get $10 if we serve. This year I'm NAC Chair and Bruce Reeve is NAC Director. These are annual political appointments, so either or both could change next year. The BoD minutes of March 3-6 2009 at the Detroit NABC say: "The chairman of > the NABC Appeals Committee will be reimbursed for expenses incurred in > connection with official committee business." > > That's pretty vague. I found another undated page created 11 Sept 2008 on > the ACBL web site that is more specific: > > Compensation for the Chairman and Co-Chairmen of NABC Tournament > Committees, only while serving at the tournament, shall be as follows. > > 1. Each shall receive a hotel room > 2. Each shall receive per diem (at the rate paid to tournament directors) > 3. Each shall be allowed free play privileges. > > Is that current? > No. First of all we no longer have co-chairmen. Second, the NAC Chair is also reimbursed for travel expenses. The NAC director would be reimbursed for travel too, but I think that he is already reimbursed for that as a BoD member This important committee should be listed on the ACBL web site, not merely > in NABC Daily Bulletins. > I like that idea -- thanks! I'll pass it on. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091008/25fbcdbe/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 8 23:46:40 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 23:46:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> References: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001201ca4860$d1e7cc50$75b764f0$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin L French > > A few years ago, a long-time part-time partner and I both forgot our convention > cards when playing in the Wed night Masters game at our local club. I said, "Hey, > let's try playing with no conventions whatsoever!" That we did and came in > second. It was a very relaxing game, quite enjoyable. > > I tested that idea the next week with another long-time part-time partner. We were > well above average, something like 55%. > > With both partners I had well-established agreements about standard bidding, > which is much more important than conventions: > > -- Bids: forcing, invitational, or weak? > -- Overcall quality > -- Preemptive bid quality > -- Doubles, takeout or business? > > And so forth. > > Both partners refused to repeat the experiment, feeling they could not do without > the many conventions. My wife agrees with them, unfortunately. Did "conventions" include such things as Blackwood, Stayman and transfers over NT openings? What about the usual 2Cl strong opening convention? Regards Sven From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 9 00:46:39 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:46:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders In-Reply-To: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> References: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4ACE6BCF.1040403@nhcc.net> Marvin L French wrote: > "Hey, let's try playing with no conventions whatsoever!" ... > -- Doubles, takeout or business? Takeout double is a convention, of course. Not that it detracts from your main point that _most_ conventions make very little difference to one's results. In fact, I think takeout double might be the only convention that one really can't do without in a modern game. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 9 00:48:36 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:48:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201ca4860$d1e7cc50$75b764f0$@no> References: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> <001201ca4860$d1e7cc50$75b764f0$@no> Message-ID: <4ACE6C44.4090704@nhcc.net> Sven Pran wrote: > Did "conventions" include such things as Blackwood, Stayman and transfers > over NT openings? > What about the usual 2Cl strong opening convention? I don't know how Marv played, but I could happily do without all these. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 8 23:54:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 08:54:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3BA17101-0A76-426C-99ED-DA48C519694D@starpower.net> Message-ID: Wikipedia: "Secretary Birds associate in monogamous pairs. During courtship, they exhibit a nuptial display by soaring high with undulating flight patterns and calling with guttural croaking. Males and females can also perform a grounded display by chasing each other with their wings up and back, much like the way they chase prey." Marvin French: [snip] >>I inquired about this matter with Kaplan in a letter describing an >>auction where I opened 1C and my partner responded 3S, passed around >>to LHO (a Life Master, at a time when that meant something). LHO now >>demanded to know the meaning of the 3S bid. Going by Law 75C, I >>answered that all I knew about that bid came from my general >>knowledge and experience, not from any *special* (n.b.) partnership >>agreement. The TD said I must explain the bid, so I quoted the Law >>to him from memory. He then told my LHO, "It wasn't Alerted so it >>has to be natural, weak" and walked away. That was Max Hardy. >> >>Edgar replied (in a postcard I still have) that he would vote "not >>guilty," but hoped I would explain the bid to someone from a foreign >>country or to an inexperienced player. Of course I would. Eric Landau: >I would like to nominate Marv for this year's Secretary Bird Memorial >Bridge Lawyering Award. [snip] >Of course, Marv could have instead spoken exactly two words -- >"natural, weak" -- and none of the above would have occurred. > >There is absolutely no doubt that Marv was correct about the law and >entirely within his rights. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion there is absolutely much doubt about whether Edgar Kaplan, Marvin French and Eric Landau have correctly interpreted the Laws. The 1997 Law 75C and the 2007 Law 40B6(a) state that particular types of "inferences" need not be explained. But Marv was not being asked to explain an "inference"; rather, Marv was being asked to explain a "partnership understanding", which has a different definition. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: infer, v.t. Deduce Richard Hills: One does not _deduce_ one's partnership understandings. One instead _remembers_ (or, when giving MI, forgets) the prior discussions with pard about one's partnership understandings. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 9 00:08:42 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:08:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders In-Reply-To: <4ACE6BCF.1040403@nhcc.net> References: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> <4ACE6BCF.1040403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001801ca4863$e58b6340$b0a229c0$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Marvin L French wrote: > > "Hey, let's try playing with no conventions whatsoever!" > ... > > -- Doubles, takeout or business? > > Takeout double is a convention, of course. Not that it detracts from your main > point that _most_ conventions make very little difference to one's results. In fact, I > think takeout double might be the only convention that one really can't do without > in a modern game. I believe the takeout double of an opening bid of one in a suit was the very first "conventional call" in Culbertson's system. It is even older that 4NT asking for Aces (e.g. Blackwood) Regards Sven. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 9 00:37:09 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:37:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4ACE6C44.4090704@nhcc.net> References: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> <001201ca4860$d1e7cc50$75b764f0$@no> <4ACE6C44.4090704@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001901ca4867$df50db50$9df291f0$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sven Pran wrote: > > Did "conventions" include such things as Blackwood, Stayman and > > transfers over NT openings? > > What about the usual 2Cl strong opening convention? > > I don't know how Marv played, but I could happily do without all these. I haven't been able to find it again, but I remember having seen a suggestion for a change in the laws of bridge in a bridge magazine from back sometime in the early thirties: The item was to introduce a new call "Challenge" (I think it was) that could be used after any bid by an opponent at the level three (or was it four?) and higher. The effect of "Challenge" should be to terminate the auction so that the "challenged" bid was to be played redoubled. "Challenge" would of course put an end to such conventions as Splinter or Cue-bids, not to mention Blackwood in any form. Just imagine sequences like: 4NT - PASS - 5Di - Challenge when the agreed trump suit is a major. 5 Di redoubled would be the contract. Do I need to mention that Portland Club seemed interested in such a change? They even for some time ruled that when a conventional call told partner that the caller held a particular card (or cards) then such card(s) were to be treated as cards exposed during the auction (today's law 24)! And it was only after an extended dispute with Ely Culbertson that the question was settled: Making a call that reveals the location of particular card or cards is not "saying something that reveals the speaker holding particular card(s)". Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 9 00:37:29 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:37:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801ca4863$e58b6340$b0a229c0$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >I believe the takeout double of an opening bid of one in a suit was the >very first "conventional call" in Culbertson's system. It is even older >than 4NT asking for Aces (e.g. Blackwood). Richard Hills: The takeout double is older than the game of Contract Bridge. According to Rex Mackey's "The Walk of the Oysters", the takeout double convention was introduced to Auction Bridge at the beginning of the 1920s, but then a lady promptly denounced it as a gravest possible offence. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Oct 9 00:51:13 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:51:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4ACE6C44.4090704@nhcc.net> References: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> <001201ca4860$d1e7cc50$75b764f0$@no> <4ACE6C44.4090704@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4ACE6CE1.3080906@yahoo.co.uk> [Sven Pran] Did "conventions" include such things as Blackwood, Stayman and transfers over NT openings? What about the usual 2Cl strong opening convention? [Steve Willner] I don't know how Marv played, but I could happily do without all these [Nigel] When I first played in Scotland most players played few named convcentions. Perhaps: strong notrump, strong twos, and (simple) Blackwood. Nevertheless, there were quite detailed *implicit* understandings. For example, take Marvins's 1C-3S. As far as I know, in our circle. - nobofy discussed the meaning of such sequences but - nobody would interpret this as a cue-bid, or a splinter, or a fit-jump, or a force, or exclusion, or a stop ask, or any other asking bid. Hence our *implicit* agreement was that it was natural to play; and, in spite of Marvin French's protests, because so many alternative meanings were eliminated, that is the way that some of us would have described it, if asked. I firmly believe that players should declare their "general bridge knowledge" (aka implicit understandings). Opponents shouldn't need Bletchley Park training to interpret your communications. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 9 02:46:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 11:46:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard: >>...It seems that Marv incorrectly believes that only "special >>partnership understandings" need to be disclosed, and that other >>partnership understandings need not to be disclosed... Marv: >...I thought I made clear that I meant partnership understandings >not shown on the convention card and not the subject of Alert >requirements... Law 20F1 almost says: "...He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of Alertable partnership understanding and/or partnership understanding shown on the system card. He is not entitled to know if the partnership understanding is otherwise (for example, if the Regulating Authority states that system cards need not be provided for events of lower than Sectional status, as the ACBL does, then in such events the opponent need not inform the questioner about the strength of her partner's 1NT opening)..." :-) :-) Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 9 04:28:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:28:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:46:11 -0400, wrote: > Richard: > >>> ...It seems that Marv incorrectly believes that only "special >>> partnership understandings" need to be disclosed, and that other >>> partnership understandings need not to be disclosed... > > Marv: > >> ...I thought I made clear that I meant partnership understandings >> not shown on the convention card and not the subject of Alert >> requirements... > > Law 20F1 almost says: > > "...He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about > relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about > relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are > matters of Alertable partnership understanding and/or partnership > understanding shown on the system card. He is not entitled to know > if the partnership understanding is otherwise (for example, if the > Regulating Authority states that system cards need not be provided > for events of lower than Sectional status, as the ACBL does, then > in such events the opponent need not inform the questioner about > the strength of her partner's 1NT opening)..." > > :-) :-) It used to say this? The ACBL still plays this way, but the Beijing minutes have a revised version. Today, the lady announced that her partner's 1NT was forcing and then passed it. While their verbal conversation on the topic was agreeing to play it forcing, I guess she didn't really agree with it. (It wasn't a psych.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 9 06:09:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:09:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard: >>>...It seems that Marv incorrectly believes that only "special >>>partnership understandings" need to be disclosed, and that other >>>partnership understandings need not to be disclosed... Marv: >>...I thought I made clear that I meant partnership understandings >>not shown on the convention card and not the subject of Alert >>requirements... Law 20F1 almost says: "...He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of Alertable partnership understanding and/or partnership understanding shown on the system card. He is not entitled to know if the partnership understanding is otherwise (for example, if the Regulating Authority states that system cards need not be provided for events of lower than Sectional status, as the ACBL does, then in such events the opponent need not inform the questioner about the strength of her partner's 1NT opening)..." Bob: >It used to say this? The ACBL still plays this way... Monty Python's Flying Circus actually says: Vercotti: Doug (takes a drink) I was terrified of him. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug. Interviewer: What did he do? Vercotti: He used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire. Cut to map. Presenter: (voice over) By a combination of violence and sarcasm, the Piranha brothers by February 1966 controlled London and the South East. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, controlled by my cat in Canberra's North West -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Oct 9 08:55:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:55:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] All foul, of course [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Sue Ryder (1923-2000), British philanthropist. She co-founded an organisation to care for former inmates of concentration camps. "Each place had its own individuality, atmosphere and tradition -- all foul, of course." Sven Pran, September 2004: [snip] >>>>>So in my opinion: If the players have filled in and signed >>>>>their result reports then the Director should not cancel any >>>>>board without convincing evidence that the board in fact was >>>>>fouled when played. Even strong suspicion is no longer >>>>>sufficient. David Stevenson, September 2004: >>>>This is, of course, against normal TD principles, and it is not >>>>obvious why we should not rule following normal principles. >>>> >>>>In general TDs use their judgement to decide things they cannot >>>>prove. It is not obvious to me why this situation should be >>>>different. Sven Pran, September 2004: >>>Are you seriously claiming that "normal TD principles" ("of >>>course" ???) include cancelling a board for players who have >>>reported that they played it without errors, only because you >>>believe that the board was fouled when they played it although >>>you cannot ignore the real possibility that the foul was made >>>later? >>> >>>(I do of course[sic!] not dispute cancelling the board when there >>>is no doubt that it must have been fouled already when played). David Stevenson, September 2004: >>Of course. If you believe they played a board which the Laws >>require you to cancel then you cancel it. Sven Pran, September 2004: >I'm stunned. > >Now how would you consider the following appeal (signed by all four >players)? > >"The board was not in any way destroyed when we played it" Law 85A1 (not yet created in 2004): "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." Richard Hills, October 2009: If as TD: (a) I initially believe (but have some doubts) that the board was fouled earlier, but (b) receive new evidence in a petition from all four players, then (c) I must still weigh the evidence in the scales of justice, since (d) the evidence of the four players may be incredible. An analogous situation inspired Edgar Kaplan to add a new clause to the Lawbook, in Law 79B2: "...but there shall be no obligation to increase a side's score." The proximate cause for Edgar's inspiration was two expert sharks and two LOLs unanimously agreeing after the session (but during the correction period) that an error had been made in writing down one board's score on its pickup slip. Under the 1975 Lawbook the Chief Director's hands were tied; she had to permit the score change. And, no doubt coincidentally, the changed score was of crucial importance to the expert sharks. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 9 11:59:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:59:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004101ca48c7$31619150$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I inquired about this matter with Kaplan in a letter > describing an auction where I opened 1C and my > partner responded 3S, passed around to LHO (a > Life Master, at a time when that meant something). > LHO now demanded to know the meaning of the > 3S bid. Going by Law 75C, I answered that all I > knew about that bid came from my general knowledge > and experience, not from any *special* (n.b.) partnership > agreement. The TD said I must explain the bid, so I > quoted the Law to him from memory. He then told > my LHO, "It wasn't Alerted so it has to be natural, > weak" and walked away. That was Max Hardy. > +=+ 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? 2. Helpfully, Mr. Hardy made sure that RHO was aware of what was going on. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 9 15:49:35 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:49:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders In-Reply-To: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> References: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <088D1414-52DE-45E4-9990-09DD1D0B2DCF@starpower.net> On Oct 8, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > A few years ago, a long-time part-time partner and I both forgot our > convention cards when playing in the Wed night Masters game at our > local club. I said, "Hey, let's try playing with no conventions > whatsoever!" That we did and came in second. It was a very relaxing > game, quite enjoyable. > > I tested that idea the next week with another long-time part-time > partner. We were well above average, something like 55%. > > With both partners I had well-established agreements about standard > bidding, which is much more important than conventions: > > -- Bids: forcing, invitational, or weak? > -- Overcall quality > -- Preemptive bid quality > -- Doubles, takeout or business? > > And so forth. > > Both partners refused to repeat the experiment, feeling they could > not do without the many conventions. My wife agrees with them, > unfortunately. Don't blame your wife; blame the sad state of bridge pedagogy. Rules and memorization have replaced principles and logic in the bridge bidding syllabus. To be fair to the bridge teachers, this may well be because today's beginners are clamoring to learn all that fancy modern stuff, which they equate with complex, artificial methods. But I'm old enough to think that we may have reached the point where bridge teachers now teach that way instinctively, because that is the way they themselves were taught. Early in my ventures into duplicate (early 1960s) I had one of those "aha" moments when I began to really understand what "bridge thinking" is about. A well-known expert (and world-class bridge teacher) took a few minutes to explain jumps by a passed hand to me: When you jump, it should show a hand good enough for a game opposite a full opening bid (as opposed to a light third- or fourth-seat opener). But since you have passed, that must mean that you have re- evaluated your hand positively because of partner's opening bid. You do that by "adding fit points" when you have a fit -- you can't be good enough to jump if the hand might be a misfit. So when partner makes a passed-hand jump in a new suit, you can be assured -- entirely by the logic of the situation -- that he also has a fit for your suit. Today this principle has turned into the "Fit-Showing Jump Shifts By Passed Hand Convention": When you jump in a new suit as a passed hand, you promise a fit for partner's suit. Because Teacher says so. Because that's the way the convention is written. Add it to your notes an memorize it. And don't forget to alert it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 9 16:03:37 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:03:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: <3BA17101-0A76-426C-99ED-DA48C519694D@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > Eric wrote: > >> Of course, Marv could have instead spoken exactly two words -- >> "natural, weak" -- and none of the above would have occurred. >> >> There is absolutely no doubt that Marv was correct about the law >> and >> entirely within his rights. >> >> I suspect, however, that most of us would have preferred to spend >> that time and effort playing bridge. > > You jump to the conclusion that my attitude was customary, which it > was not. My opponent was a snippy woman with thousands of > masterpoints who should have known what an unAlerted 3S bid meant. I > had been getting tired of the myriad of such questions from people > of that ilk, too lazy to learn the game and expecting me to teach it > to them. With pleasant or inexperienced players I have always > answered any question, whether or not I have to. I know enough of Marv from his posts here that, to be honest, I was quite certain that what Marv described would not have taken place other than against an LHO who roundly deserved it. I just couldn't resist the opportunity to make an important point, albeit perhaps a bit snarkily. At the club level, where the bulk of my directorial experience lies, and where minor liberties with the law in the interest of a smooth and friendly game are readily accepted, when called in such situation I explain that I can give a complicated legalistic ruling from which [I will make sure that] the lawyer-type will not gain any advantage, or he can just decide to fuhgeddabouddit and answer the damn question. They almost always make the sensible choice. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 9 16:24:53 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:24:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders In-Reply-To: <001801ca4863$e58b6340$b0a229c0$@no> References: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> <4ACE6BCF.1040403@nhcc.net> <001801ca4863$e58b6340$b0a229c0$@no> Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I believe the takeout double of an opening bid of one in a suit was > the very > first "conventional call" in Culbertson's system. It is even older > that 4NT > asking for Aces (e.g. Blackwood) FTR, 4NT asking for aces originated with Culbertson and is even older than Blackwood. Culbertson's version asked about both aces and kings in "genuinely bid suits", anticipating modern key-card Blackwood variations. Sometimes the new is just the old comin' 'round again. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 9 16:35:40 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:35:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2009, at 10:28 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Today, the lady announced that her partner's 1NT was forcing and then > passed it. While their verbal conversation on the topic was > agreeing to > play it forcing, I guess she didn't really agree with it. (It wasn't a > psych.) Reinforcing the theme of an earlier post... I'd wager that in her own mind, her mistake was not "passing a forcing bid", but rather "getting the Forcing Notrump Convention wrong". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Fri Oct 9 17:59:47 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:59:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hardball In-Reply-To: References: <3BA17101-0A76-426C-99ED-DA48C519694D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4ACF5DF3.9070408@yahoo.co.uk> [Eric Landau] I know enough of Marv from his posts here that, to be honest, I was quite certain that what Marv described would not have taken place other than against an LHO who roundly deserved it. I just couldn't resist the opportunity to make an important point, albeit perhaps a bit snarkily. [Nigel] After reading some biographies (eg Hamman, Wolff, Murray & Kehela) I am intrigued at what they seem proud of doing on purpose to gain advantage eg Chuck an opponent's favourite pen away, smoke virulent cigars that an opponent hates, and so on. Should a director approve such behaviour against an opponent "who roundly deserves it". From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 9 19:45:38 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:45:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders In-Reply-To: References: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> <4ACE6BCF.1040403@nhcc.net> <001801ca4863$e58b6340$b0a229c0$@no> Message-ID: <000901ca4908$500b8a20$f0229e60$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I believe the takeout double of an opening bid of one in a suit was > > the very first "conventional call" in Culbertson's system. It is even > > older that 4NT asking for Aces (e.g. Blackwood) > > FTR, 4NT asking for aces originated with Culbertson and is even older than > Blackwood. Culbertson's version asked about both aces and kings in "genuinely > bid suits", anticipating modern key-card Blackwood variations. Sometimes the new > is just the old comin' 'round again. Sure, the Culbertson 4-5 NT convention is older than Blackwood; I wrote "e.g.Blackwood" on the assumption that today's bridge players are more familiar with the latter and assuming Blackwood when nothing else is agreed upon. In Culbertson's "Contract Bridge Blue book" issued in 1933 he wrote: "For the first time in any Bridge book a complete analysis of Slam bidding methods is presented. The Culbertson Four-Five Notrump Convention is introduced, which definitely solves the problem of Small and Grand Slam bidding." According to another of the books on bridge in my library, issued in 1929, the takeout double of an opening bid of one in a suit was already then apparently part of "general bridge knowledge". Richard Hills called attention to a fact that the TO double existed even before the game of Contract Bridge, a fact that I have no reason to doubt. Regards Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 19:48:54 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lukewarm defenders In-Reply-To: <000901ca4908$500b8a20$f0229e60$@no> References: <05A1DE63DD9C4DCFAFE46891CE6A0D27@MARVLAPTOP> <4ACE6BCF.1040403@nhcc.net> <001801ca4863$e58b6340$b0a229c0$@no> <000901ca4908$500b8a20$f0229e60$@no> Message-ID: 2009/10/9 Sven Pran : > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> > I believe the takeout double of an opening bid of one in a suit was >> > the very first "conventional call" in Culbertson's system. It is even >> > older that 4NT asking for Aces (e.g. Blackwood) >> >> FTR, 4NT asking for aces originated with Culbertson and is even older than >> Blackwood. ?Culbertson's version asked about both aces and kings in > "genuinely >> bid suits", anticipating modern key-card Blackwood variations. ?Sometimes > the new >> is just the old comin' 'round again. > > Sure, the Culbertson 4-5 NT convention is older than Blackwood; I wrote > "e.g.Blackwood" on the assumption that today's bridge players are more > familiar with the latter and assuming Blackwood when nothing else is agreed > upon. Culbertson's 4-5NT convention is quite playable even today. I played a slightly modernized version in several partnerships in 1984-89. > > In Culbertson's "Contract Bridge Blue book" issued in 1933 he wrote: "For > the first time in any Bridge book a complete analysis of Slam bidding > methods is presented. The Culbertson Four-Five Notrump Convention is > introduced, which definitely solves the problem of Small and Grand Slam > bidding." > > According to another of the books on bridge in my library, issued in 1929, > the takeout double of an opening bid of one in a suit was already then > apparently part of "general bridge knowledge". > > Richard Hills called attention to a fact that the TO double existed even > before the game of Contract Bridge, a fact that I have no reason to doubt. > > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Oct 9 20:44:59 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 11:44:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Hardball References: <3BA17101-0A76-426C-99ED-DA48C519694D@starpower.net> <4ACF5DF3.9070408@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: > [Eric Landau] > I know enough of Marv from his posts here that, to be honest, I > was > quite certain that what Marv described would not have taken place > other than against an LHO who roundly deserved it. I just > couldn't > resist the opportunity to make an important point, albeit perhaps > a > bit snarkily. Thank you Eric, no offense taken. Let me add more to the story. First, the unjustified questioning of a non-Alerted call is sometimes a "pro question" by a player who knows the answer but inquires for partner's benefit. In a regional championship I doubled a 1H opening, pro LHO bid 2H, passed to me and I doubled again. Pro passed and my experienced partner bid 2NT, which knowledge and experience told me was "unusual" for the minors. So I bid 3C and pro demanded to know the meaning of 2NT. When I said, "You know as much as I do," she called the TD, who lectured me on the subject of full disclosure. I in turn lectured him and he left. Obviously the pro wanted to be sure her Jane was not intimidated by the 2NT bid in case she had values to bid 3H. The pro question was declared illegal by the WBFLC in its Lille 1998 meeting, watered down for no good reason to "improper" in the 2007 Laws. It's an illegal communication with partner, for Pete's sake. When a Drafting Committee seemingly ignores a WBFLC minute, they owe us an explanation. Secondly, if I answer a question unnecessarily that is UI to partner. I don't like that an opponent can force me to create unnecessary UI. The 1C-P-3S auction I described ended with LHO bidding 4H, making. Now suppose my inexperienced partner had better spades than shown and heard my explanation "Natural, preemptive, no defense, something like seven spades to the QJ10," and bid 4S down one? She might well have done that in the absence of the UI, but with it the score will be adjusted back to 4H making In this case the explanation came from the TD. Would that be authorized information or TD error? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 9 23:23:01 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 23:23:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Hardball In-Reply-To: References: <3BA17101-0A76-426C-99ED-DA48C519694D@starpower.net> <4ACF5DF3.9070408@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <000a01ca4926$aeabf3d0$0c03db70$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin L French ................ > Secondly, if I answer a question unnecessarily that is UI to partner. I don't like that > an opponent can force me to create unnecessary UI. The 1C-P-3S auction I > described ended with LHO bidding 4H, making. Now suppose my inexperienced > partner had better spades than shown and heard my explanation "Natural, > preemptive, no defense, something like seven spades to the QJ10," and bid 4S > down one? She might well have done that in the absence of the UI, but with it the > score will be adjusted back to 4H making > > In this case the explanation came from the TD. Would that be authorized > information or TD error? I would say: "Definitely YES!" Regards Sven PS.: If my answer seems unclear then please add: "and YES" From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 10 07:59:40 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:59:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:35:40 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 8, 2009, at 10:28 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Today, the lady announced that her partner's 1NT was forcing and then >> passed it. While their verbal conversation on the topic was >> agreeing to >> play it forcing, I guess she didn't really agree with it. (It wasn't a >> psych.) > > Reinforcing the theme of an earlier post... > > I'd wager that in her own mind, her mistake was not "passing a > forcing bid", but rather "getting the Forcing Notrump Convention wrong". No, she verbally agreed to play it forcing and then decided to pass. Which meant it wasn't forcing. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 10 12:14:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:14:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] World Bridge Series 2010. Message-ID: <003801ca4992$7a6b84c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 12:14 PM Subject: [BLML] World Bridge Series 2010. > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " The principles of a free constitution are > irrecoverably lost, when the legislative > power is nominated by the executive." > [Edward Gibbon] > ********************************* > Just in case you missed it, the brochure for next year's > World Bridge Series in Philadelphia. is now available. > It has information about the hotels including how to make > reservations, the schedule, entry fees etc. You can > download it from the WBF Site at www.worldbridge.org > or from the ECatsBridge site at www.ecatsbridge.com > Grattan, Could you first provide information about National League Championship Bridge Series and Amercian League Championship Bridge Series in 2010? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Afera Hazardowa- O co tu chodzi? Sprawdz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f238e From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Oct 11 06:13:22 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:13:22 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 1 References: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <97E3392C04C544C2A982C906253D449F@MARVLAPTOP> Richard, in ACBL-land, regarding the subject case: Do you agree that the score adjustment for the offenders should be the result of 5SX, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable [assuming no illegal addition to L12C1(e)(ii)]? If so, this is a good counter-example for Grattan and the WBFLC, who said that the illegal change was a minor matter (or something like that). Assume there was a terrible blunder by the non-offenders, which there wasn't. Do you agree that L12C1(e)(i) trumps L12C1(b)? That is, if the blunder could not have occurred had the irregularity not happened, then the adjustment is according to L12C1(e)(i), right? Al Levy of the WBFLC would say that 3S didn't happen, so it cannot be considered. But it did happen. Not the contract, but the bid. A double of 5D cannot be considered because it didn't happen, even if we say it was at all probable. Just trying to make sure I have my thinking right. Marv From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Oct 11 07:41:10 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:41:10 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 1 References: <7DAABE8EA1B043A586E404B13F443BF3@MARVLAPTOP> <97E3392C04C544C2A982C906253D449F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <7963AEBAD559402B939F7D92086EAF4A@MARVLAPTOP> Meant as private, sorry, but others' comments are welcome - Marv > Richard, in ACBL-land, regarding the subject case: > > Do you agree that the score adjustment for the offenders should be > the result of 5SX, the most unfavorable result that was at all > probable [assuming no illegal addition to L12C1(e)(ii)]? If so, > this > is a good counter-example for Grattan and the WBFLC, who said that > the illegal change was a minor matter (or something like that). > > Assume there was a terrible blunder by the non-offenders, which > there wasn't. Do you agree that L12C1(e)(i) trumps L12C1(b)? That > is, if the blunder could not have occurred had the irregularity > not > happened, then the adjustment is according to L12C1(e)(i), right? > > Al Levy of the WBFLC would say that 3S didn't happen, so it cannot > be considered. But it did happen. Not the contract, but the bid. A > double of 5D cannot be considered because it didn't happen, even > if > we say it was at all probable. > > Just trying to make sure I have my thinking right. > Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 11 12:42:10 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:42:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nothing like that, maybe. Message-ID: <000d01ca4a83$0aef8140$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Richard Hills, pedantic peeve: In the good old days, newspaper sub-editors would have quickly corrected opinion column writers attempting to use the word "prevaricate" (lie) by the sub-editors substituting the contextually intended word "procrastinate" (dither). Nowadays sub-editors have over reliance on spell-check, so the Sydney Morning Herald, once- great, grates on my pedantry on a regular basis. Eric Landau: >>I'd wager that in her own mind, her mistake was not "passing a >>forcing bid", but rather "getting the Forcing Notrump Convention >>wrong". Robert Frick: >No, she verbally agreed to play it forcing and then decided to >pass. Which meant it wasn't forcing. Richard Hills, pedantic peeve: No, which meant it was forcing. To quote the deceased cheat Terence Reese, "An agreement with partner is not an undertaking to the opponents." Or, in pedantic legal language, Law 40A3 says: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." 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 Mon Oct 12 00:58:40 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:58:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:38:19 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills, pedantic peeve: > > In the good old days, newspaper sub-editors would have quickly > corrected opinion column writers attempting to use the word > "prevaricate" (lie) by the sub-editors substituting the contextually > intended word "procrastinate" (dither). Nowadays sub-editors have > over reliance on spell-check, so the Sydney Morning Herald, once- > great, grates on my pedantry on a regular basis. > > Eric Landau: > >>> I'd wager that in her own mind, her mistake was not "passing a >>> forcing bid", but rather "getting the Forcing Notrump Convention >>> wrong". > > Robert Frick: > >> No, she verbally agreed to play it forcing and then decided to >> pass. Which meant it wasn't forcing. > > Richard Hills, pedantic peeve: > > No, which meant it was forcing. To quote the deceased cheat Terence > Reese, "An agreement with partner is not an undertaking to the > opponents." Or, in pedantic legal language, Law 40A3 says: > > "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement > provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed > partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." Well, it might be legal for her to pass -- that's all you've shown -- but obviously 1NT was not forcing. Just as your car could be broken despite a verbal agreement with the repair shop that it would work. Note that both players could be playing 1NT as not forcing even though their verbal agreement is that it is forcing. Just as both players might open 14-16 HCP hands 1NT even though their verbal agreement is 15-17 HCP. One candidate for a change is that players must describe the system they play. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 12 01:05:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:05:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hardball [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: >...The pro question was declared illegal by the WBFLC in its Lille >1998 meeting, watered down for no good reason to "improper" in the >2007 Laws. It's an illegal communication with partner, for Pete's >sake. When a Drafting Committee seemingly ignores a WBFLC minute... Richard Hills: The Drafting Committee did not _ignore_ any of the 1997-2005 WBF LC minutes. But as a Drafting Committee for the decennial 2007 change to The Fabulous Law Book, of course they were not _bound_ by any WBF LC minutes which interpreted the obsolete 1997 edition of TFLB. Marvin French: >...they owe us an explanation... Explanation from the Introduction: "...The task that confronted the Drafting Committee was to ensure the Laws were updated so as to cope with past changes and to establish a framework that can cope with future developments. Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers..." Explanation from Law 20G1: "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." Explanation from the Definitions: "Infraction - a player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation." Richard Hills: So "improper" in Law 20G1 is not a watered down non-infraction. Rather, by the Definition of "infraction", an "improper" breach of Law 20G1 _is_ an infraction. Best what's the problem 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 Oct 12 01:38:17 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:38:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Fallacy Files http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from near identity to extreme dissimilarity. Here are two important points about analogy: 1. No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, but only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy. 2. There is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter how different. For example, Lewis Carroll once posed the following nonsense riddle: How is a raven like a writing desk? The point of the riddle was that they're not; alike, that is. However, to Carroll's surprise, some of his readers came up with clever solutions to the supposedly unsolvable riddle, for instance: Because Poe wrote on both. Robert Frick uses the word "obviously": >Well, it might be legal for her to pass -- that's all you've shown -- >but obviously 1NT was not forcing. Just as your car could be broken >despite a verbal agreement with the repair shop that it would work. [snip] Richard Hills also uses the word "obviously": Weak analogy. A better analogy would be that your family car was in perfect working order when you left the repair shop, and that is what must be by Law recorded on the car's registration form (system card), but a few miles down the road your learner driver teenage son crashed the car into a tree (passed a forcing bid). The point, "obviously", is that the definition of "forcing" for technical discussions of Law 40 differs from Bob's common-or-garden non-Lawful definition (where Bob's common-or-garden "forcing" is defined as "never has been and never will be passed, world without end, amen"). 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 Oct 12 02:36:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:36:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hardball [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00da01ca4ad5$4b7a5bc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hardball [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Marvin French: > >>...The pro question was declared illegal by the WBFLC in its Lille >>1998 meeting, watered down for no good reason to "improper" in the >>2007 Laws. It's an illegal communication with partner, for Pete's >>sake. When a Drafting Committee seemingly ignores a WBFLC minute... > > Richard Hills: > > The Drafting Committee did not _ignore_ any of the 1997-2005 WBF LC > minutes. But as a Drafting Committee for the decennial 2007 change > to The Fabulous Law Book, of course they were not _bound_ by any WBF > LC minutes which interpreted the obsolete 1997 edition of TFLB. > > Marvin French: > >>...they owe us an explanation... > > Explanation from the Introduction: > > "...The task that confronted the Drafting Committee was to ensure > the Laws were updated so as to cope with past changes and to > establish a framework that can cope with future developments. > > Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers..." > > Explanation from Law 20G1: > > "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." > > Explanation from the Definitions: > > "Infraction - a player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation." > > Richard Hills: > > So "improper" in Law 20G1 is not a watered down non-infraction. > > Rather, by the Definition of "infraction", an "improper" breach of > Law 20G1 _is_ an infraction. > +=+ There are many actions that are illegal but which entail no impropriety. An action which is improper, however, is both a violation of correct procedure, ergo illegal, and a breach of ethical standards ('improper' = not in accordance with accepted standards of behaviour.). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 12 05:01:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:01:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:38:17 -0400, wrote: > The Fallacy Files > http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html > > Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from > near identity to extreme dissimilarity. Here are two important points > about analogy: > > 1. No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference > between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, but > only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy. > > 2. There is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter > how different. For example, Lewis Carroll once posed the following > nonsense riddle: > > How is a raven like a writing desk? > > The point of the riddle was that they're not; alike, that is. However, > to Carroll's surprise, some of his readers came up with clever solutions > to the supposedly unsolvable riddle, for instance: > > Because Poe wrote on both. > > Robert Frick uses the word "obviously": > >> Well, it might be legal for her to pass -- that's all you've shown -- >> but obviously 1NT was not forcing. Just as your car could be broken >> despite a verbal agreement with the repair shop that it would work. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills also uses the word "obviously": > > Weak analogy. A better analogy would be that your family car was in > perfect working order when you left the repair shop, and that is what > must be by Law recorded on the car's registration form (system card), but > a few miles down the road your learner driver teenage son crashed the car > into a tree (passed a forcing bid). > > The point, "obviously", is that the definition of "forcing" for technical > discussions of Law 40 differs from Bob's common-or-garden non-Lawful > definition (where Bob's common-or-garden "forcing" is defined as "never > has been and never will be passed, world without end, amen"). Hi Richard. I was just using the analogy to help you understand the point. Right, Forcing means that partner has to bid. There is no definition of forcing in the laws, nor any definition for technical discussions. You brought up Law 40, not me. The problem is that players expect opponents' descriptions to correspond to what the opponents actually do. That's pretty fair and reasonable. The laws would work better if they supported this position. It's fine with me if a player opens 1NT with a beautiful 14 HCP when the card says 15-17. (In ACBL-land, the card does not say 15-17 what, so it could just be points.) My problem is if a player opens 1NT with a routine 14 HCP. If they are going to do that, it should be on the convention card. On this particular hand, Easy would have bid 2C had he known that 1NT might be passed. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 12 05:01:26 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:01:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hardball [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4ACF5DF3.9070408@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >...smoke virulent cigars that an opponent hates, and so on. Should a >director approve such behaviour against an opponent "who roundly >deserves it"? Large bridge player: "May I smoke a virulent cigar?" Small bridge player: "Yes, but if I may in turn vomit into your lap." 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 Oct 12 06:04:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:04:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Evelyn Waugh, "Scoop" (1938): "Other nations use 'force'; we Britons alone use 'Might'." Robert Frick, questing: >Hi Richard. I was just using the analogy to help you understand the >point. Right, Forcing means that partner has to bid. Evelyn Waugh, "Scoop" (1938): "Up to a point, Lord Copper." Richard Hills, pedanting: Forcing means that partner has, by prior agreement, promised to bid. Evelyn Waugh, "Scoop" (1938): "Feather-footed through the plashy fen passes the questing vole." Robert Frick, questing: >There is no definition of forcing in the laws, nor any definition >for technical discussions. You brought up Law 40, not me..... Richard Hills, pedanting: "This call is forcing" was not engraved on stone tablets at the top of Mount Sinai. Rather, "this call is forcing" is a prior explicit or implicit mutual partnership understanding pursuant to Law 40 which (no doubt coincidentally) is entitled "Partnership Understandings". :-) :-) 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 Oct 12 06:25:55 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:25:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nothing like that, maybe. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01ca4a83$0aef8140$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ Oh? "Grattan and the WBFLC, who said that the illegal change was a minor matter (or something like that)." A curious interpretation of a minute - and the personal attribution is speculative, my personal opinions are wrapped within a corporate statement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Observation by the Secretary of the WBF LC, recorded in its minutes: "The Secretary [Grattan Endicott] observed that while the layout of this law has altered, its English meaning is unchanged from that of the 1997 law." Corporate decision of the WBF LC, recorded in its minutes: "The matter was not considered to need further attention, the committee noting that the Directors present do not recall any occasion where it had made a difference." Explanation of the corporate decision, recorded on blml 12th Sept: +=+ 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. ~ 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 Oct 12 07:09:42 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:09:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >...On this particular hand, Easy would have bid 2C had he known that >1NT might be passed. Richard LHO Hashmat RHO 1H Pass 1NT (1) Pass(2) Pass(3) Pass(4) (1) Alerted and correctly explained as an artificial game force relay (2) RHO would have bid 2C had he known that 1NT might be passed (3) Holding a three-card heart suit and a yarborough, the gutsy first- seat version of Herman's third-seat psyche, since pard indeed had my guts for garters, because... (4) 1NT was one off, but pard was cold for ten tricks in 4S (pard was relaying to investigate the grand slam) 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 Oct 12 08:03:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:03:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] KKKK [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder, 4th October 2004 (barometer and Law 15 thread): [snip] 1. The laws do not, (and should not, in my opinion), cover all possible deviations of procedure and aberrations that can occur at a bridge table. Or this would have to even cover "two cokes" to the waitress heard as "2 clubs" at the table. (Yes, there are still places where bidding is vocal). Or how about mistakes or actions during written bidding - which is used for over some 2 million players of our duplicate game? 2. There has been a continued and destructive (again in my opinion) movement by Zones and some NBOs to misapply the laws to want them to be able to justify pet peeves, or solve so-called insoluble problems. This is usually accomplished by having in-house savants pontificate on what the laws "really" mean or should be. [snip] PS No need to reply, Herman - I am fully au courant with your self-image. However, should you be interested, I did interject my comments to the original message enclosed by KKKK for your reading pleasure. Kojak Herman De Wael, 3rd October 2004 (barometer and Law 15 thread): >Look fellas, you're all missing the point here. > >Well, if this is a Howell tournament, we are all agreeing that L15C tells >us to take pair A off the table and to conduct 2 new auctions: one with pairs B and C, and one with A and D. In these new auctions, A and B are >obliged to repeat their calls, and C and D must bid normally. KKKK In a Howell , other than possible relay tables, the boards for different tables for the current round are not the same -- it is for this reason, and not who the opponents are, that 15C applies. Were you using a Howell movement (such as the endless Howell used in WBF Pairs Championships and many other NBO and Zonal events) Law 15C would NOT apply since the boards are the same for each table in the same round. KKKK Herman De Wael, 3rd October 2004 (barometer and Law 15 thread): [big snip] >So what's the difference? KKKK The difference is that the boards being played at both tables DURING THE CURRENT ROUND ARE THE SAME. KKKK Herman De Wael, 3rd October 2004 (barometer and Law 15 thread): [biggest snip] KKKK This shows at least some understanding of why 15C exists -- it talks about the boards, does it not? KKKK Herman De Wael, 3rd October 2004 (barometer and Law 15 thread): [snip] >Law 15C could have had a better wording; something like: "If, during the >auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a >board not designated for him to play in the current round or is playing >this board against opponents not designated for him to meet in this round >then he shall cancel the auction, ........." KKKK This is not a "better wording." It is a change of what the Law means, and one that I strongly reject. KKKK Herman De Wael, 3rd October 2004 (barometer and Law 15 thread): >.....I suggest that you keep to the sensible solution, but write it in a >regulation somewhere..... KKKK And whatever the regulating body finds to be the "sensible" solution rightly belongs in the their Regulations, and not in the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 200?. KKKK ..... KKKK FOR SVEN: I hope that what you suggest makes clear the difference between playing the wrong opponents and playing boards that you should not be meeting at this time. I think it is the problems caused by having to adjust, Average (+ or -), etc., when the boards are involved that is by far the most important problem to be able to resolve. Particularly when the auction differs IN ANY WAY. Kojak Richard Hills, 12th October 2009 (barometer and Law 15 thread): The only criterion which activates the 2007 Law 15 is wrong board (not wrong player), so it seems to me that a contestant meeting the wrong opponent in a barometer must be ruled by a regulation pursuant to Law 8A1: "The Director instructs the players as to the proper movement of boards and progression of contestants." and/or a regulation pursuant to Law 81B1: "The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer." Best wishes RRRR -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Oct 12 11:05:02 2009 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?Sm9z6SBNaWd1ZWw=?= ) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:05:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] World Bridge Series 2010. References: <003801ca4992$7a6b84c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Hi Grattan, thankks for your informatio, but Ecats and World have many information. Please, acn you concret where in this webs? Thanks Jos? -------Mensaje original------- De: Grattan Fecha: 10/10/2009 12:35:27 Para: blml at rtflb.org Asunto: [BLML] World Bridge Series 2010. Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <004201ca4b1f$c319fc90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:04:46 -0400, wrote: > Evelyn Waugh, "Scoop" (1938): > > "Other nations use 'force'; we Britons alone use 'Might'." > > Robert Frick, questing: > >> Hi Richard. I was just using the analogy to help you understand the >> point. Right, Forcing means that partner has to bid. > > Evelyn Waugh, "Scoop" (1938): > > "Up to a point, Lord Copper." > > Richard Hills, pedanting: > > Forcing means that partner has, by prior agreement, promised to bid. > > Evelyn Waugh, "Scoop" (1938): > > "Feather-footed through the plashy fen passes the questing vole." > > Robert Frick, questing: > >> There is no definition of forcing in the laws, nor any definition >> for technical discussions. You brought up Law 40, not me..... > > Richard Hills, pedanting: > > "This call is forcing" was not engraved on stone tablets at the top > of Mount Sinai. Rather, "this call is forcing" is a prior explicit > or implicit mutual partnership understanding pursuant to Law 40 which > (no doubt coincidentally) is entitled "Partnership Understandings". > > :-) :-) Nice try, but the issue was to define forcing. In the phrase "this call is forcing", what do you think the word forcing means? Suppose my pickup partner asks if 1NT is forcing by a passed hand. I answer yes, fully intending to pass his bid when I have a balanced minimum or an awkward rebid. Then I alert his bid as forcing, RHO doesn't bid because I have alerted it as forcing, and I pass. That's all legal, right? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 14:23:10 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:23:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/10/12 Robert Frick : > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:04:46 -0400, wrote: > >> Evelyn Waugh, "Scoop" (1938): >> >> "Other nations use 'force'; we Britons alone use 'Might'." >> >> Robert Frick, questing: >> >>> Hi Richard. I was just using the analogy to help you understand the >>> point. Right, Forcing means that partner has to bid. >> >> Evelyn Waugh, "Scoop" (1938): >> >> "Up to a point, Lord Copper." >> >> Richard Hills, pedanting: >> >> Forcing means that partner has, by prior agreement, promised to bid. >> >> Evelyn Waugh, "Scoop" (1938): >> >> "Feather-footed through the plashy fen passes the questing vole." >> >> Robert Frick, questing: >> >>> There is no definition of forcing in the laws, nor any definition >>> for technical discussions. You brought up Law 40, not me..... >> >> Richard Hills, pedanting: >> >> "This call is forcing" was not engraved on stone tablets at the top >> of Mount Sinai. ?Rather, "this call is forcing" is a prior explicit >> or implicit mutual partnership understanding pursuant to Law 40 which >> (no doubt coincidentally) is entitled "Partnership Understandings". >> >> :-) ?:-) > > Nice try, but the issue was to define forcing. In the phrase "this call is > forcing", what do you think the word forcing means? > > Suppose my pickup partner asks if 1NT is forcing by a passed hand. I > answer yes, fully intending to pass his bid when I have a balanced minimum > or an awkward rebid. Then I alert his bid as forcing, RHO doesn't bid > because I have alerted it as forcing, and I pass. > > That's all legal, right? If you're supposed to pass 1NT with certain holdings, it isn't forcing. Only semi-forcing. I guess it's still alertable, though. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 12 14:25:45 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:25:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Frick" Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 22:01 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:38:17 -0400, wrote: > >> The Fallacy Files >> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html >> >> Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from >> near identity to extreme dissimilarity. Here are two important points >> about analogy: >> >> 1. No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference >> between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, but >> only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy. >> >> 2. There is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter >> how different. For example, Lewis Carroll once posed the following >> nonsense riddle: >> >> How is a raven like a writing desk? >> >> The point of the riddle was that they're not; alike, that is. However, >> to Carroll's surprise, some of his readers came up with clever solutions >> to the supposedly unsolvable riddle, for instance: >> >> Because Poe wrote on both. >> >> Robert Frick uses the word "obviously": >> >>> Well, it might be legal for her to pass -- that's all you've shown -- >>> but obviously 1NT was not forcing. Just as your car could be broken >>> despite a verbal agreement with the repair shop that it would work. >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills also uses the word "obviously": >> >> Weak analogy. A better analogy would be that your family car was in >> perfect working order when you left the repair shop, and that is what >> must be by Law recorded on the car's registration form (system card), but >> a few miles down the road your learner driver teenage son crashed the car >> into a tree (passed a forcing bid). >> >> The point, "obviously", is that the definition of "forcing" for technical >> discussions of Law 40 differs from Bob's common-or-garden non-Lawful >> definition (where Bob's common-or-garden "forcing" is defined as "never >> has been and never will be passed, world without end, amen"). > > Hi Richard. I was just using the analogy to help you understand the point. > Right, Forcing means that partner has to bid. There is no definition of > forcing in the laws, nor any definition for technical discussions. You > brought up Law 40, not me. > > The problem is that players expect opponents' descriptions to correspond > to what the opponents actually do. That's pretty fair and reasonable. The > laws would work better if they supported this position. Actually, such an expectation is neither fair nor reasonable because of the fact that such an expectation is totally unfair and totally unreasonable. It is optimistic for a well constructed bidding system to perform well on as many as 40% of the hands, and, most bidding systems are far from well constructed. That means that the normal state of affairs is there are at least 3 hands in 5 where some compromise or compromises are made- Without accounting for the human element; and last I noticed, bridge is a human undertaking. regards roger pewick From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Oct 12 15:24:21 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:24:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD32E05.6040502@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] In the good old days, newspaper sub-editors would have quickly corrected opinion column writers attempting to use the word "prevaricate" (lie) by the sub-editors substituting the contextually intended word "procrastinate" (dither). [Dictionary] Verb (intransitive) To shift or turn from the direct course, or from truth; to evade the truth; to waffle or be (intentionally) ambiguous. to speak with equivocation; to shuffle; to quibble; to collude, as where an informer colludes with the defendant, and makes a sham prosecution. "The people saw the politician prevaricate every day." [Nigel] Prevarication (evasive waffle rather than blatant lying) is common at the Bridge table, for example, when you enquire about the meaning of an opponent's bid, or ssk how long opponent's partner hesitated. From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Mon Oct 12 15:35:59 2009 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:35:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] forcing bid Message-ID: Partner may pass a forcing bid if next hand bids. The important thing is that the bidder gets another chance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091012/ee8a6864/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 12 17:21:09 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:21:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:25:45 -0400, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Robert Frick" > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 22:01 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:38:17 -0400, wrote: >> >>> The Fallacy Files >>> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html >>> >>> Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from >>> near identity to extreme dissimilarity. Here are two important points >>> about analogy: >>> >>> 1. No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference >>> between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, >>> but >>> only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy. >>> >>> 2. There is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter >>> how different. For example, Lewis Carroll once posed the following >>> nonsense riddle: >>> >>> How is a raven like a writing desk? >>> >>> The point of the riddle was that they're not; alike, that is. However, >>> to Carroll's surprise, some of his readers came up with clever >>> solutions >>> to the supposedly unsolvable riddle, for instance: >>> >>> Because Poe wrote on both. >>> >>> Robert Frick uses the word "obviously": >>> >>>> Well, it might be legal for her to pass -- that's all you've shown -- >>>> but obviously 1NT was not forcing. Just as your car could be broken >>>> despite a verbal agreement with the repair shop that it would work. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> Richard Hills also uses the word "obviously": >>> >>> Weak analogy. A better analogy would be that your family car was in >>> perfect working order when you left the repair shop, and that is what >>> must be by Law recorded on the car's registration form (system card), >>> but >>> a few miles down the road your learner driver teenage son crashed the >>> car >>> into a tree (passed a forcing bid). >>> >>> The point, "obviously", is that the definition of "forcing" for >>> technical >>> discussions of Law 40 differs from Bob's common-or-garden non-Lawful >>> definition (where Bob's common-or-garden "forcing" is defined as "never >>> has been and never will be passed, world without end, amen"). >> >> Hi Richard. I was just using the analogy to help you understand the >> point. >> Right, Forcing means that partner has to bid. There is no definition of >> forcing in the laws, nor any definition for technical discussions. You >> brought up Law 40, not me. >> >> The problem is that players expect opponents' descriptions to correspond >> to what the opponents actually do. That's pretty fair and reasonable. >> The >> laws would work better if they supported this position. > > > Actually, such an expectation is neither fair nor reasonable because of > the > fact that such an expectation is totally unfair and totally unreasonable. > It is optimistic for a well constructed bidding system to perform well > on as > many as 40% of the hands, and, most bidding systems are far from well > constructed. That means that the normal state of affairs is there are at > least 3 hands in 5 where some compromise or compromises are made- Without > accounting for the human element; and last I noticed, bridge is a human > undertaking. Hi Roger. I am not sure how you are getting a 40% rate for this. I would rate that at least 95% of my hands I follow partnership agreement, maybe higher. Some people with more discipline and/or less imagination are going to be at 100%. Even the player at our club who routinely misbids his hand is not at 40%. If you are talking about system holes, I am not sure you are on solid legal ground. Returning to my example, suppose their system is such that is it often wise to pass the forcing 1NT. Aren't the opponents entitled to know that? Suppose I ask "Is your system such that it is sometimes wise to pass the forcing no trump?" From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Oct 12 20:05:06 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:05:06 -0700 Subject: [BLML] World Bridge Series 2010. References: <003801ca4992$7a6b84c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <8B14636EEDF740CFAE5B3AA124BEE6A5@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > ********************************* > Just in case you missed it, the brochure for next year's > World Bridge Series in Philadelphia. is now available. > It has information about the hotels including how to make > reservations, the schedule, entry fees etc. You can > download it from the WBF Site at www.worldbridge.org > or from the ECatsBridge site at www.ecatsbridge.com I did that, but was disappointed not to see fees for the Regionally-rated events. I have always dreamed of playing in a WBF championship, just one, but I cannot afford the fees even for that. I had hoped they would be more reasonable. Evidently expenses are pretty high. Considering that the ACBL pays the WBF only $300,000 for the privilege of having the WBS in Philly, I hope the WBF doesn't lose money on the event. I believe the ACBL makes money on its NABCs, which are held in fine hotels, despite huge expenses for all those getting free hotel, card fees, salaries, and per diem. Nightly entertainment and food treats add to the expense. The card fees keep creeping up but are still below $20 a session for most events ($20 for the major ones). I guess I won't complain about them anymore. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Oct 12 20:50:25 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:50:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Committee Procedures References: <8E0DBB199AEF490DB6BF8056353B87EB@MARVLAPTOP> <694eadd40910070008s34db483dm9548b11216628a10@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40910081434l1268e28p26777a7919b76e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > I don't think your conclusion follows. Compensation in Sweden and > England > may also be a "paucity." Yes, but AC service has traditionally been by unpaid volunteers, throughout the world (SFIK) and throughout the ACBL (SFIK) except for NABCs. Some may complain of "paucity," but I doubt it. > > I believe compensation for ACBL AC members ought to be increased. > The battle > I've fought, though, is to keep player committees around at all. > Over the > past decade we've survived three ACBL Board of Directors motions > to > eliminate player committees in favor of TD panels. I am glad of that, believing that all appeals should be heard by ACs, not TDs. However, the present way (formal, late night) NABC+ appeals are held at NABCs (only, SFIK), presumably makes that unfeasible. But why should we who play in Non-NABC events get different treatment than those in NABC+ events? TDs rule on law, ACs on bridge judgment, that has always been accepted. Polls by TD panels for non-NABC+ events are no substitute for expert bridge judgment. My opinion on that is clouded by the fact that TD panels overall do as good a job as ACs, IMO. The cure for that is to upgrade the ACs, make appointments non-political, and have a good training program. As of now I believe the policy is "on-the-job" training and education by the casebooks. Neither is really a good way to train. For example, you can't learn bridge just by playing. The casebook comments, good as they are, have been restricted to a select few. I miss Ron Gerard, David Stevenson, and many other good ones who were not afraid to use strong language. Currently there are only five, including Bobby Wolff (whose opinions don't always follow the Laws) and the chairman of the AC (who, while unbiased, must be polite). It is good to have one of the best TDs, Matt Smith, serving in this role. Jeff Goldsmith is excellent. We just need more like him. >> Adam, I assume that only you get more than the $10 remuneration >> given to >> those who serve on an AC, is that right? > > The BoD minutes of March 3-6 2009 at the Detroit NABC say: "The > chairman of >> the NABC Appeals Committee will be reimbursed for expenses >> incurred in >> connection with official committee business." >> >> That's pretty vague. I found another undated page created 11 Sept >> 2008 on >> the ACBL web site that is more specific: >> >> Compensation for the Chairman and Co-Chairmen of NABC Tournament >> Committees, only while serving at the tournament, shall be as >> follows. >> >> 1. Each shall receive a hotel room >> 2. Each shall receive per diem (at the rate paid to tournament >> directors) >> 3. Each shall be allowed free play privileges. >> >> Is that current? >> > No. First of all we no longer have co-chairmen. Second, the NAC > Chair is > also reimbursed for travel expenses. Okay, so that's item 4. Sorry, but getting all that for "expenses incurred in connection with official committee business" seems like a stretch. I pay for all that out of my pocket, as you would if not on the NAC. You should be remunerated for your NAC work with a generous lump sum, not this way. >The NAC director would be reimbursed > for travel too, but I think that he is already reimbursed for that > as a BoD > member. Yes the BoD get hotel, entry fees, per diem, and travel expenses. I believe a spouse gets travel for one NABC per year only. The BoD are supposed to attend the Board of Governors meeting to get per diem for that day, if I remember right. A very close friend on the BoG tells me some BoD members do drop by once in a while, Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 12 23:44:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:44:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Please to remember the Fifth of November, Gunpowder Treason and Plot. We know no reason why gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot. Robert Frick (12th October 2009): >>...The problem is that players expect opponents' descriptions to >>correspond to what the opponents actually do. That's pretty fair >>and reasonable. The laws would work better if they supported this >>position... >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: None > >You are playing the Dorothy Acol system. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1C Pass 1D >Pass 1H Pass 3NT >Pass ...5S(1) Pass ? > >(1) Undiscussed > >You, South, hold: > >KT9 >K63 >AK864 >98 > >Question One: What does pard's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? Adam Beneschan (Guy Fawkes Day, 2004): It demonstrably suggests that partner is anguishing over whether the probability that his bizarre bid will be misunderstood and lead to a disaster is outweighed by the likelihood that his Master Bid will be written up in all the bridge magazines if it works. >Question Two: What call do you make? Adam Beneschan (Guy Fawkes Day, 2004): 6NT. Partner seems to be making a slam invitation. Maybe it's a grand slam invitation---I have no idea. I also have no idea what the heck he's asking for. But I do have 13 cards, which IMHO is enough to accept this kind of slam invitation... Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Oct 12 23:55:10 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:55:10 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <58CF75D99B084132B3FEB15C412FB2F6@MARVLAPTOP> >From Richard Hills Marv wrote: >>Did I say otherwise? Jose's Foreword is an optional item for those >>printing "translations" of the Laws, but its latter part (which >>includes a WBF copyright notice) is requested by Jose to be >>included regardless. The French incorporated the entire Foreword, >>while the ACBL and the EBU ignored it completely. > > Richard Hills: > > The initial drafters of the Duplicate Laws, the Whist Club of New > York and the Portland Club of London, created copyrights which > have > not yet expired. > > The Whist Club of New York's copyright extended throughout the > Western Hemisphere, plus The Philippines. Many years ago The > Whist > Club of New York gave its unexpired copyright to the ACBL. > > The Portland Club's copyright used to extend to the area of the > British Commonwealth past and present (other than the Western > Hemisphere), the Continent of Africa, Spain, Portugal and all > English speaking countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. However, it > is possible that nowadays The Portland Club is merely enforcing > its > unexpired copyright in only the territory of the United Kingdom. > > Hence the ACBL and the EBU were correct to ignore Jose's Foreword > completely, since Jose invalidly attempted a no way Jose transfer > of > unexpired copyrights to the WBF. The laws previously copyrighted by the Portland Club and the ACBL, or whoever, are not the same documents as the 2007 Laws created and copyrighted by the WBF. The Portland Club and the ACBL downloaded that copyrighted document, made a few formatting changes as permitted, and then claimed copyright for the result. Even the title was changed by the WBF! No one ever copyrighted that title previously. If I copyright my article Notes on the Human Cell*, can someone else download it and copyright it after making a few unimportant changes, just because they have previously copyrighted an article on the same subject? I don't think so. Jose Damiani to me by e-mail: "But it is totally clear that the WBF Laws Commission leads and control the Laws of Duplicate Bridge as published in 2007. (See attached)" The attachment was his Foreword to the 2007 Laws. The ACBL's position, as I see it, is that they will comply fully with the WBF 2007 Laws in international competition, but not in ACBL-land. And aha, they dated the Laws 2008 to reinforce that claim. I wonder what the Canadians and Mexicans (included in ACBL's Zone) think of that. A Texas bigwig archly pointed out to me that the ACBL has been given the right to promulgate the Laws, evidently thinking that includes the right to make substantive changes. However, "promulgate" means distribute without substantive changes. Maybe Texas has a different dictionary. (Actually he used the word "license," but I don't know where that came from.) * On my web site, uncopyrighted, under "Not About Cards." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 13 00:12:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:12:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <58CF75D99B084132B3FEB15C412FB2F6@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001601ca4b89$09a60b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> > > A Texas bigwig archly pointed out to me that the ACBL has been given > the right to promulgate the Laws, evidently thinking that includes > the right to make substantive changes. However, "promulgate" means > distribute without substantive changes. Maybe Texas has a different > dictionary. (Actually he used the word "license," but I don't know > where that came from.) > > * On my web site, uncopyrighted, under "Not About Cards." > > +=+ 'To promulgate' (a law) = "put into effect by official proclamation"+=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 13 00:19:54 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:19:54 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <58CF75D99B084132B3FEB15C412FB2F6@MARVLAPTOP> <001601ca4b89$09a60b40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <930308C3A1BE47BEBA89C7DE019C405A@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" > > +=+ 'To promulgate' (a law) > = "put into effect by official proclamation"+=+ Yes, without substantive changes to the official version. A town crier might change a few words while promulgating a new proclamation, but they won't change anything in a significant way. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 13 00:32:42 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:32:42 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Hardball [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: > Marvin French: > >>...The pro question was declared illegal by the WBFLC in its Lille >>1998 meeting, watered down for no good reason to "improper" in the >>2007 Laws. It's an illegal communication with partner, for Pete's >>sake. When a Drafting Committee seemingly ignores a WBFLC >>minute... > > Richard Hills: > > The Drafting Committee did not _ignore_ any of the 1997-2005 WBF > LC > minutes. But as a Drafting Committee for the decennial 2007 > change > to The Fabulous Law Book, of course they were not _bound_ by any > WBF > LC minutes which interpreted the obsolete 1997 edition of TFLB. > > Marvin French: > >>...they owe us an explanation... > > Explanation from the Introduction: > > "...The task that confronted the Drafting Committee was to ensure > the Laws were updated so as to cope with past changes and to > establish a framework that can cope with future developments. I mean more explicit explanations for every WBFLC minute that was not incorporated. Are we players not to be given such explanations? > > Directors have been given considerably more discretionary > powers..." > > Explanation from Law 20G1: > > "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." > > Explanation from the Definitions: > > "Infraction - a player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation." > > Richard Hills: > > So "improper" in Law 20G1 is not a watered down non-infraction. > > Rather, by the Definition of "infraction", an "improper" breach of > Law 20G1 _is_ an infraction. > Law 20G2: ...a player may not consult his own system card...during the auction. Doing so is an infraction because of the "may not." If the pro question is an infraction why did they not write "1. A player may not ask a question for partner's benefit."? That would accord with the WBF LC minute in Lille and Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and play." Talking on a hand-held cell phone when driving is an infraction in my state. The law says it is illegal, not merely improper. "Improper" would get a "naughty-naughty" from a cop, not a ticket. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 13 00:50:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:50:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay, "Yes Prime Minister": Peter Harding: Soames has been waiting for a bishopric for years. Sir Humphrey: Long time, no see. Richard Hills (15th September 2009): >>Try this thought experiment: If the rules of football mandated a six >>month ban for physically injuring an opponent, I feel that the game >>would become much more violent. If a football player is going to be >>banned for six months for injuring his left hand opponent, then to >>make it worth while the football player will break both legs of his >>LHO, so that the LHO is also out of the game for six months. >> >>It is easy to build arbitrary thought experiments which satisfy >>your prejudices. For example, many years ago a blmler developed a >>thought experiment that it was "obvious" that "many" experts "must" >>be using reverse hesitations. >> >>But a thought experiment has no validity until tested, when counter- >>intuitive results may arise (such as Israeli economists being >>surprised to discover that guilt is sometimes more of a sanction than >>a monetary fine). The "thought experiment" blmler (8th November 2004) asserted: [snip] >For example, a typical class of expert, if he finds himself hesitating >in a non-forcing auction, will lean over backwards to take some action >(bid or double) so as not to compromise his partner. Richard Hills (9th November 2004) dissects: In my opinion, there is a logical fallacy in this premise of [the other blmler's] argument. It is true that a small number of experts are pathological ditherers. But a large majority of experts know the huge advantage that uniformly acting in tempo provides to their side. Uniform tempo in bidding and play minimises any authorised information to the opponents, thus making guesses more difficult for the opponents. Uniform tempo in bidding and play minimises any unauthorised information to partner, thus making actions easier for partner (due to the absence of any Law 73C constraints upon pard). Furthermore, if an expert does hesitate, it is to ensure that they get a critical decision right. An expert will not waste the time that they have spent thinking by automatically choosing a stupid bid or a ridiculous double when a pass is the superior action. The "thought experiment" blmler (8th November 2004) concluded: >Hence, a hesitation followed by a pass usually denotes amorphous grot. [snip] Richard Hills (9th November 2004) dissects: Sir Humphrey Appleby may label [the other blmler's] conclusion a novel idea. I am less polite, and label [the other blmler's] conclusion a courageous idea. An expert does not become an expert without some understanding of the requirements of Law 73D2 and Law 73F. An expert knows that such actions as hesitating with a singleton are both foolish and futile. Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay, "Yes Prime Minister": Sir Humphrey: If you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it, you must say the decision is "courageous". Bernard: And that's worse than "controversial"? Sir Humphrey: Oh, yes! "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes"; "courageous" means "this will lose you the election". Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 13 01:31:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:31:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hardball [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The magician's nephew, Digory Kirke: "Grown-ups are always thinking of uninteresting explanations." Marvin French: >>...they owe us an explanation... Explanation from the Introduction: "...The task that confronted the Drafting Committee was to ensure the Laws were updated so as to cope with past changes and to establish a framework that can cope with future developments..." Marvin French: >I mean more explicit explanations for every WBFLC minute that was >not incorporated. Are we players not to be given such explanations? Richard Hills: Why? Why?? Why??? It is difficult enough for Regulating Authorities to explain to their players and Directors the requirements of the new 2007 Lawbook that we have. It is "obvious" that only confusion would be caused if Regulating Authorities also explained to their players and Directors the other 2005 Lawbook that we almost had. (Although the ingenious format of the never-promulgated 2005 Lawbook may be useful grist for the mill when the Drafting Committee creates the 2018 edition of the Lawbook.) Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 13 02:00:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:00:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Leon Trotsky (1879-1940): "Where force is necessary, there it must be applied boldly, decisively and completely. But one must know the limitations of force; one must know when to blend force with a manoeuvre, a blow with an agreement." Robert Frick asked: >...In the phrase "this call is forcing", what do you think the word >forcing means? > >Suppose my pickup partner asks if 1NT is forcing by a passed hand. I >answer yes, fully intending to pass his bid when I have a balanced >minimum or an awkward rebid. Then I alert his bid as forcing, RHO >doesn't bid because I have alerted it as forcing, and I pass. > >That's all legal, right? Law 75C: "...Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement..." May the force be with you 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 Oct 13 02:42:17 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:42:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD3CCE9.8020102@yahoo.co.uk> [richard.hills] [SNIP] The "thought experiment" blmler (8th November 2004) asserted: [SNIP] In my opinion, there is a logical fallacy in this premise of [the other blmler's] argument. [Nigel] I stand by what I wrote :) IMO, there is no fallacy in my argument :) Richard is welcome to attribute my opinions to me by name :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 13 05:04:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:04:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >...Suppose I ask "Is your system such that it is sometimes wise to pass >the forcing no trump?" Richard Hills: "Yes" is the only truthful answer from 100% of players who use the forcing no trump convention. But Bob was asking the wrong question, it should be: "Is your partnership method such that sometimes in the past one of you has elected to pass the forcing no trump?" If for this second question the truthful answer is "No", then they are playing the forcing no trump. If for this second question the truthful answer is "Yes", then they are playing the semi-forcing no trump. Law 40C - Deviation from System and Psychic Action 1. A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. ***Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed*** in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty. 2. ***Other than the above no player has any obligation to disclose to opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods.*** 3. (a) Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. (b) ***Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized.*** Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 13 05:05:09 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:05:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:00:12 -0400, wrote: > Leon Trotsky (1879-1940): > > "Where force is necessary, there it must be applied boldly, decisively > and completely. But one must know the limitations of force; one must > know when to blend force with a manoeuvre, a blow with an agreement." > > Robert Frick asked: > >> ...In the phrase "this call is forcing", what do you think the word >> forcing means? >> >> Suppose my pickup partner asks if 1NT is forcing by a passed hand. I >> answer yes, fully intending to pass his bid when I have a balanced >> minimum or an awkward rebid. Then I alert his bid as forcing, RHO >> doesn't bid because I have alerted it as forcing, and I pass. >> >> That's all legal, right? > > Law 75C: > > "...Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an > accurate description of the North-South agreement..." I changed my mind. Law 94 should be that if you arrive at ruling that lacks common sense, common morality, and is absurd, find a different ruling. > > May the force be with you > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 13 05:26:13 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:26:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] leading Message-ID: This is, in a way, the same question I asked about Beijing. At Sao Paulo, the Beijing revision of L20F1 was discussed. It was decided not to change anything. Did Grattan point out to the board members that this revision disentitled players from asking about insufficient bids? And if not, why not? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 13 05:52:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:52:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hardball [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 2007 version of Law 20G1: "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." Marvin French: >..."Improper" would get a "naughty-naughty" from a cop, not a ticket. > >Marv Hypothetical 2018 version of Law 20G1: "A player must not ask a question solely for partner's benefit. Such a question is improper (see Law 73B1)." 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 Oct 13 07:13:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:13:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Heedless of editorials [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Hiller B. Zobel (1932- ), American judge: "Judges must follow their oaths and do their duty, heedless of editorials, letters, telegrams, threats, petitions, panellists and talk shows." Pocket Oxford Dictionary: obiter dictum, n. Casual remark, especially judge's opinion expressed incidentally and without binding force. ACBL Appeals Committee obiter dictum / non-binding editorial: [snip] >>>As a matter of self-interest, though, a player should strongly >>>consider explaining the ***intended*** meaning of his bid [snip] >>>Since this is a tough case to make without written evidence >>>(such as a notation on the CC or system notes) a player will >>>often be better off explaining his own understanding of a >>>disputed call, ***regardless*** of which partner was mistaken. [RJBH *** emphasis added] Richard Hills rant, 28th January 2005: >>As for the second paragraph of advice, it would gladden the >>heart of Herman De Wael. How can it be legal to suggest that a >>player lie about a partnership agreement, merely because a player >>has insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a partnership >>agreement? Adam Wildavsky first time for everything, 15th February 2005: >I wrote the paragraph in question. I hope I did not encourage >anyone to lie -- that was certainly not my intent. What I wanted >to suggest was that a player consider saying "I intended my bid >thusly" or perhaps "While I now realize that I forgot our >agreement in fact I intended to show thus and such." > >I had no idea that I was agreeing with Herman. That also was not >my intent. Ah, well, there's a first time for everything. 2007 Law 75C - Mistaken Call: "The partnership agreement is as explained ... the mistake was in South's call. Here there is no infraction of Law ... South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has ***no responsibility to do so subsequently***." [RJBH *** emphasis added] 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 Oct 13 12:26:05 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD455BD.5010505@yahoo.co.uk> [Robert Frick] I changed my mind. Law 94 should be that if you arrive at ruling that lacks common sense, common morality, and is absurd, find a different ruling. [Nigel] A radical change that would repeal many existing laws :) From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Oct 13 13:28:39 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:28:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Heedless of editorials [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD46467.2040508@yahoo.co.uk> [richard.hills quoted 2007 Law 75C - Mistaken Call - *his emphasis*] "The partnership agreement is as explained ... the mistake was in South's call. Here there is no infraction of Law ... South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has ***no responsibility to do so subsequently***." [Nigel] I agree with Adam Wildavsky that a partnership should admit to a probable mistake when it is tantamount to an understanding. For instance, in an experienced partnership, a common reason for partner to make the wrong bid is that your partnership has recently changed a convention and he has revertd to your previous agreement. This means that, if you suspect partner to have made a mistake, then you are better placed than opponents, to guess what he really has. Old example (exhumed once again). You hold S:Axxxxx H:AJT D:xx C:xx. Partner opens 4C, "solid hearts", according to your current agreement. There may be several plausible explanations but in a long-standing partnership, you can often diagnose which is most likely. - Perhaps partner has got his red cards mixed up and you should bid 4H. - More probable, perhaps, is that he has reverted to your *previous agreement* "weak diamond pre-empt". To cater for both possibilities, you might "psych" a 4D "cue bid". - But suppose your previous agreement was "weak club pre-empt". You might then choose to "psych" a pass. - And so on. OK? You get the idea? :) From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 13 15:22:30 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:22:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9608982A-86B1-4F34-9404-51C3B28DEA8B@starpower.net> On Oct 11, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:38:19 -0400, wrote: > >> No, which meant it was forcing. To quote the deceased cheat Terence >> Reese, "An agreement with partner is not an undertaking to the >> opponents." Or, in pedantic legal language, Law 40A3 says: >> >> "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement >> provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed >> partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." > > Well, it might be legal for her to pass -- that's all you've shown > -- but > obviously 1NT was not forcing. Just as your car could be broken > despite a > verbal agreement with the repair shop that it would work. > > Note that both players could be playing 1NT as not forcing even though > their verbal agreement is that it is forcing. Just as both players > might > open 14-16 HCP hands 1NT even though their verbal agreement is > 15-17 HCP. > > One candidate for a change is that players must describe the system > they > play. There is no functional difference between "players must describe the system they play" and "players must play the system they describe". Which, as Richard suggests, isn't bridge as we know it. "Agree to play" is very different from "play" in this context. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 13 15:44:02 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:44:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 12, 2009, at 8:20 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Nice try, but the issue was to define forcing. In the phrase "this > call is > forcing", what do you think the word forcing means? Made in the expectation that partner will bid (if needed to insure that you get another call) regardless of his holding. > Suppose my pickup partner asks if 1NT is forcing by a passed hand. I > answer yes, fully intending to pass his bid when I have a balanced > minimum > or an awkward rebid. Then I alert his bid as forcing, RHO doesn't bid > because I have alerted it as forcing, and I pass. > > That's all legal, right? No. When you "answer yes, fully intending to pass..." you have not made an agreement. You have misled partner into believeing that you have made an agreement, which is not the same thing at all. If you alert his bid as forcing, you deliberately mislead your opponents by pretending to have an agreement knowing you do not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 13 18:50:54 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:50:54 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 References: Message-ID: <109775DD41A243F0BB41D44FE094A3E8@MARVLAPTOP> Eric Landau wrote: Robert Frick wrote: > >> Suppose my pickup partner asks if 1NT is forcing by a passed >> hand. I >> answer yes, fully intending to pass his bid when I have a >> balanced >> minimum >> or an awkward rebid. Then I alert his bid as forcing, RHO doesn't >> bid >> because I have alerted it as forcing, and I pass. >> >> That's all legal, right? > > No. When you "answer yes, fully intending to pass..." you have > not > made an agreement. You have misled partner into believeing that > you > have made an agreement, which is not the same thing at all. If > you > alert his bid as forcing, you deliberately mislead your opponents > by > pretending to have an agreement knowing you do not. Playing against a well-known pair in a KO event, a 1NT response to a first-seat 1S opening was Announced as forcing, but opener passed it to me. This sure seemed like a psychic opening since the vulnerability was favorable for them. Holding some spade control and other stuff I doubled for business. This got redoubled by responder and made with two overtricks. My partner and teammates were not sympathetic. Don't say I should have called the TD, as I had good reason to know that would have been futile. I still wonder if this was a frequent ploy or just a one-time experiment. If the former, the "Forcing" Announcement is cheating, since they actually play semi-forcing. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 13 21:20:14 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:20:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:04:32 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> ...Suppose I ask "Is your system such that it is sometimes wise to pass >> the forcing no trump?" > > Richard Hills: > > "Yes" is the only truthful answer from 100% of players who use the > forcing > no trump convention. Then why play it as forcing? Are you planning on bidding even when you think a pass is wise? > But Bob was asking the wrong question, it should be: > > "Is your partnership method such that sometimes in the past one of you > has > elected to pass the forcing no trump?" > > If for this second question the truthful answer is "No", then they are > playing the forcing no trump. You are saying that if they ever in the past have passed the "forcing" 1NT, then it is not forcing, but if they would pass the forcing 1NT some time in the next minute, as long as they have never done it in the past, the 1NT is forcing. The opponents want to know what system they players are playing this hand. In the actual example, I asked South if North had ever passed his forcing no trump and he said no, but they hadn't been playing together that long. Bob, who if he ever visits the South Canberra Bridge Club is planning on agreeing with partner to play all bids as forcing. If for this second question the truthful > answer is "Yes", then they are playing the semi-forcing no trump. > > Law 40C - Deviation from System and Psychic Action > > 1. A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always > provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation > than have the opponents. ***Repeated deviations lead to implicit > understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must > be disclosed*** in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure > of > system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has > damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a > procedural > penalty. > > 2. ***Other than the above no player has any obligation to disclose to > opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods.*** > > 3. (a) Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not > entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, > calculation or technique. > > (b) ***Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership > understandings may be penalized.*** > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Tue Oct 13 21:37:47 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:37:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:04:32 -0400, wrote: > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> ...Suppose I ask "Is your system such that it is sometimes wise to pass > >> the forcing no trump?" > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > "Yes" is the only truthful answer from 100% of players who use the > > forcing > > no trump convention. > > > Then why play it as forcing? Are you planning on bidding even when you > think a pass is wise? You play it as forcing because you think that playing it as forcing offers the best percentages. You then pass partner's forcing bid because you think that passing his forcing bid offers the best percentages. You have xx,xx,xx,xxxxxxx. Partner opens 1C, strong club, RHO passes. What do you do? Respond 1D and let opener torture you with whatever comes next? Myself, I pass. Thomas Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 13 21:54:24 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:54:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 13, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:04:32 -0400, wrote: > >> Robert Frick: >> >>> ...Suppose I ask "Is your system such that it is sometimes wise >>> to pass >>> the forcing no trump?" >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> "Yes" is the only truthful answer from 100% of players who use the >> forcing >> no trump convention. > > Then why play it as forcing? Are you planning on bidding even when you > think a pass is wise? You play it forcing because, at the time you make your partnership agreements, you do not anticipate the existence of some hand on which "a pass is wise". But that is not an undertaking not to recognize such a hand for the first time when you pick it up, or to make an "unwise" bid when you do merely because your agreement failed to anticipate the possibility. Of course, once you do pick up such a hand, and pass with it, you henceforth do recognize the possibility of picking up hands on which "a pass is wise", and your agreement becomes modified accordingly, as Richard suggests. >> But Bob was asking the wrong question, it should be: >> >> "Is your partnership method such that sometimes in the past one of >> you >> has >> elected to pass the forcing no trump?" >> >> If for this second question the truthful answer is "No", then they >> are >> playing the forcing no trump. > > You are saying that if they ever in the past have passed the "forcing" > 1NT, then it is not forcing, but if they would pass the forcing 1NT > some > time in the next minute, as long as they have never done it in the > past, > the 1NT is forcing. > > The opponents want to know what system they players are playing > this hand. The opponents naturally want to know what you hold when you bid, AKA "the system you were playing when you took that call". ("On this particular occasion it showed five spades to the ace-queen, three small hearts..."). Unfortunately for them, they are entitled only to know what system you have agreed with your partner. > In the actual example, I asked South if North had ever passed his > forcing > no trump and he said no, but they hadn't been playing together that > long. Did they lie? If anything, they provided additional information to which you may not have been technically entitled (that they hadn't been playing together that long). WTP? > Bob, who if he ever visits the South Canberra Bridge Club is > planning on > agreeing with partner to play all bids as forcing. It sounds like Bob, if he ever visits the South Canberra Bridge Club, is planning on pretending to have a prima facie impossible agreement with his partner to play all bids as forcing (did he mean all bids except 7NT?). Misleading your partner, or the field, into thinking you have an agreement which you secretly intend not to honor isn't the same thing as having a genuine agreement. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 13 23:01:08 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:01:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:37:47 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:04:32 -0400, wrote: >> >> > Robert Frick: >> > >> >> ...Suppose I ask "Is your system such that it is sometimes wise to >> pass >> >> the forcing no trump?" >> > >> > Richard Hills: >> > >> > "Yes" is the only truthful answer from 100% of players who use the >> > forcing >> > no trump convention. >> >> >> Then why play it as forcing? Are you planning on bidding even when you >> think a pass is wise? > > You play it as forcing because you think that playing it as forcing > offers > the best percentages. > > You then pass partner's forcing bid because you think that passing his > forcing bid offers the best percentages. Are there particular hands where you always would pass because it offers the best percentages. And if so why can't you figure them out in advance? And if so, why aren't you obligated to warn the opponents? Or does it depend on facial expressions or hesitations or whatever from the opponents and/or partner? > > You have xx,xx,xx,xxxxxxx. Partner opens 1C, strong club, RHO passes. > What do you do? Respond 1D and let opener torture you > with whatever comes next? > Myself, I pass. Then why not admit that is your system? Bob From bobpark at consolidated.net Tue Oct 13 23:09:00 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:09:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD4EC6C.9050408@consolidated.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:04:32 -0400, wrote: > > >> Robert Frick: >> >> >>> ...Suppose I ask "Is your system such that it is sometimes wise to pass >>> the forcing no trump?" >>> >> Richard Hills: >> >> "Yes" is the only truthful answer from 100% of players who use the >> forcing >> no trump convention. >> > > > Then why play it as forcing? Are you planning on bidding even when you > think a pass is wise? > > > > > > >> But Bob was asking the wrong question, it should be: >> >> "Is your partnership method such that sometimes in the past one of you >> has >> elected to pass the forcing no trump?" >> >> If for this second question the truthful answer is "No", then they are >> playing the forcing no trump. >> > > You are saying that if they ever in the past have passed the "forcing" > 1NT, then it is not forcing, but if they would pass the forcing 1NT some > time in the next minute, as long as they have never done it in the past, > the 1NT is forcing. > > The opponents want to know what system they players are playing this hand. > > In the actual example, I asked South if North had ever passed his forcing > no trump and he said no, but they hadn't been playing together that long. > > Bob, who if he ever visits the South Canberra Bridge Club is planning on > agreeing with partner to play all bids as forcing. > > > Perhaps this is why Edgar preferred "intended as forcing" as the message to opponents. I don't know what he actually said at the table, though, or what the ACBL might say about such a statement. But I have used it in the past, and no one has ever objected. And the bid has on occasion been passed. --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091013/7de342be/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Tue Oct 13 23:10:52 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:10:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <14778586.1255468252088.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:37:47 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:04:32 -0400, wrote: > >> > >> > Robert Frick: > >> > > >> >> ...Suppose I ask "Is your system such that it is sometimes wise to > >> pass > >> >> the forcing no trump?" > >> > > >> > Richard Hills: > >> > > >> > "Yes" is the only truthful answer from 100% of players who use the > >> > forcing > >> > no trump convention. > >> > >> > >> Then why play it as forcing? Are you planning on bidding even when you > >> think a pass is wise? > > > > You play it as forcing because you think that playing it as forcing > > offers > > the best percentages. > > > > You then pass partner's forcing bid because you think that passing his > > forcing bid offers the best percentages. > > Are there particular hands where you always would pass because it offers > the best percentages. And if so why can't you figure them out in advance? > And if so, why aren't you obligated to warn the opponents? I am obliged to warn opponents if I have a partnership agreement. I am not obliged to tell opponents my actual hand. > Or does it depend on facial expressions or hesitations or whatever from > the opponents and/or partner? Actually it does depend on opponents' facial expressions and hesitations. > > You have xx,xx,xx,xxxxxxx. Partner opens 1C, strong club, RHO passes. > > What do you do? Respond 1D and let opener torture you > > with whatever comes next? > > Myself, I pass. > > Then why not admit that is your system? I do, but I am not going through all possible bidding sequences in advance to identify all those one in a million situations where I or partner might possibly pass a forcing bid. I have much bigger holes in my bidding system than that. Thomas Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 13 23:39:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:39:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >We are too lazy to campaign for law simplifications that may attract >potential players, prolong the existence of the game, and make it even >more fun. Very complex 2007 Law 67B2: After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the Director establishes which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the Director should proceed as follows. 2. (a) When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the Director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards*, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the Director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). Ownership of the defective trick does not change. (b) A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender's hand, and a failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke. * The Director should avoid, when possible, exposing a defender's played cards, but if an extra card to be restored to a defender?s hand has been exposed, it becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). Very simple 1963 Law 68(a): When attention is drawn to a defective trick after a player on each side has played to the following trick, the defective trick stands as played and: (a) A player with too few cards plays the remainder of his hand with fewer cards than the other players; he does not play to the final trick (or tricks); and if he wins a trick with his last card, the lead passes in rotation. So under the 1963 Lawbook, there was the "even more fun" possibility of -> NORTH (Dummy) AKJ97543 AQ86 3 --- SOUTH (Declarer) --- --- AKQT AKQJT9632 January 1970 Bridge World, "Fish Kill", Stephen R. Sandler: [snip] "We did finally stop at seven notrump with me declarer. The opening lead -- low club of course. I'll spare you my thoughts of running everything in the hope that somebody would unguard the jack of diamonds or that it would fall. A quick peek had shown that card five times to my right in a hand with no other card above a ten. From the glint of determination in the eyes of the jack-holder and his steely grip on the cards, I knew that jack would not be unguarded." [snip] "I managed to lead my last club with the ten of diamonds concealed under it. The stage was set." [snip] "So I reeled off my top diamonds, producing a simple squeeze at trick 12: NORTH A A --- --- WEST EAST Q --- K --- --- J9 --- --- SOUTH --- --- Q --- I led the diamond queen, and all I had to do was follow West's discard. He threw the spade queen, so I pitched the spade ace and announced that since I now had no more cards my left-hand opponent was on lead. The added pressure was too much for the beleaguered pharmacist. Crying hysterically by this time, he dropped his heart king on the floor, continued to fumble with his wallet and led ... yes ... his Social Security card. I might have been able to handle the situation myself, but some lousy kibitzer called the director when the pharmacist's partner momentarily stopped breathing. After applying artificial respiration for 90 seconds, the director made his decision. The lead of the Social Security card stood. Unless dummy could produce a Social Security card with a higher number (and the director knew as well as I did that Kozinkoff had never worked a day in his life) we would lose the trick." [snip] What's the problem? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 14 00:02:18 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:02:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: English proverb: "Great minds think alike." Thomas Dehn: [snip] >You have xx,xx,xx,xxxxxxx. Partner opens 1C, strong club, RHO passes. > >What do you do? Respond 1D and let opener torture you with whatever >comes next? > >Myself, I pass. Richard Hills: Twenty-odd years ago I chose such a pass of my partner's strong 1C. My LHO chose to balance and pard now rebid 4S, holding ten playing tricks in spades. Pard now turned to my RHO, saying, "I don't know whose partner is worse, yours or mine." English proverb: "Fools never differ." 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 Oct 13 23:37:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:37:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000101ca4c55$249e0f70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:04:32 -0400, wrote: > > In the actual example, I asked South if North had ever passed his forcing > no trump and he said no, but they hadn't been playing together that long. > +=+ Now I wonder how much this question increased for North the probability that this hand was just the one on which to pass? He may have judged astutely that there was a certain anxiety underlying the question. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 14 00:56:41 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:56:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bob: >>Bob, who if he ever visits the South Canberra Bridge Club is >>planning on agreeing with partner to play all bids as forcing. Samuel Goldwyn (1882-1974): "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is written on." Richard: But under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, a partnership method isn't worth the system card it is written on _if_ Bob and his partner have pre-existing over-riding implicit partnership understandings created through mutual experience or awareness that some bids should _not_ be forcing in their partnership. 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." Eric: >It sounds like Bob, if he ever visits the South Canberra Bridge Club, >is planning on pretending to have a prima facie impossible agreement >with his partner to play all bids as forcing (did he mean all bids >except 7NT?). Misleading your partner, or the field, into thinking >you have an agreement which you secretly intend not to honor isn't >the same thing as having a genuine agreement. Richard: The partnerSHIP misleading the field is illegal. But one partner misleading the other partner is legal, unless and until Law 40C1 becomes relevant. Law 40A3: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." Law 40C1, first and third sentences: "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. ..... If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 14 01:52:17 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:52:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Heedless of editorials [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AD46467.2040508@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Pocket Oxford Dictionary: tantamount, pred. a. T. to, coming to the same thing as, equivalent to Nigel Guthrie: >I agree with Adam Wildavsky that a partnership should admit to a >probable mistake when it is tantamount to an understanding. Richard Hills: Adam Wildavsky never suggested that a mistaken call would ever be equivalent to (tantamount to) a partnership understanding. Rather, it seems to me that Adam suggested that the mistaken caller may save time by explaining both the actual partnership understanding and also the mistaken caller's original intent whenever there was a chance of an ACBL Appeals Committee erring in its determination of the facts. While Adam's advice was merely dubious under the 1997 Lawbook, an ACBL declarer who takes Adam's advice nowadays may be infracting Law 72A: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to ***obtain a higher score*** than other contestants whilst ***complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards*** set out in these laws." if the unnecessary explanation of the misbidding declarer's original intent sees double-dummy defence beating a 3NT contract which would otherwise make. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Old example (exhumed once again). You hold S:Axxxxx H:AJT D:xx C:xx. >Partner opens 4C, "solid hearts", according to your current agreement. >There may be several plausible explanations but in a long-standing >partnership, you can often diagnose which is most likely. [snip] >- But suppose your previous agreement was "weak club pre-empt". You >might then choose to "psych" a pass. >- And so on. OK? You get the idea? :) Richard Hills: Old answer. The Fabulous Law Book uses the Aristotelian Principle of the Excluded Middle. There is no such animal as a semi-implicit partnership understanding. Either: (a) Pard has frequently forgotten the new convention and frequently holds a weak hand with long clubs. In that case you have an implicit partnership understanding that pard's 4C is a multi (either weak with clubs or strong with hearts). A further problem is that such a multi may be a Law 40B5 illegal convention. Or: (b) This is the very first time that you can remember pard getting it wrong (the previous time pard got it wrong, twenty-five years ago, you have now completely forgotten). You go for your best guess of passing 4C. Unlucky; this was a Law 25A case, pard meant to pull 3NT (gambling with a long solid minor) out of the bidding box, so pard is forced to declare a 2-1 trump fit at the four level for the rare score of -700. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 14 02:19:26 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:19:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101ca4c55$249e0f70$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101ca4c55$249e0f70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <33374.68.194.70.218.1255479566.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " Allergy warning: > May contain traces of > nuts; may also contain > traces of other nuts." > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:20 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:04:32 -0400, wrote: >> >> In the actual example, I asked South if North had ever passed his >> forcing >> no trump and he said no, but they hadn't been playing together that >> long. >> > +=+ Now I wonder how much this question increased for > North the probability that this hand was just the one on which > to pass? He may have judged astutely that there was a certain > anxiety underlying the question. +=+ I was director. So my question to North occurred after I was called to the table. Maybe no one else has a problem with this auction. 1C P 1H(1) P 1NT(2) P P P (1) supposedly showing 6 HCP, holding only 4 or 5. But I had a singleton club, 5 hearts (to the ten), and my memory is that we were vulnerable. So I bid 1NT, hoping to find a better spot. (2) showing 12-14 HCP and a balanced hand. The player actually had 18-19 HCP. But he had a feeling or intution or somesuch nonsense. I would have changed 1NT making 1 to 2NT down 1. I didn't know what to do with 2NT making 2 or 3 possibly because of a misled defense. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Oct 14 02:44:36 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:44:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: <109775DD41A243F0BB41D44FE094A3E8@MARVLAPTOP> References: <109775DD41A243F0BB41D44FE094A3E8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2539B3092D5B4492BEB41BE0D6C3F528@erdos> "Marvin L French" writes: > Eric Landau wrote: > > Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Suppose my pickup partner asks if 1NT is forcing by a passed >>> hand. I >>> answer yes, fully intending to pass his bid when I have a >>> balanced >>> minimum >>> or an awkward rebid. Then I alert his bid as forcing, RHO doesn't >>> bid >>> because I have alerted it as forcing, and I pass. >>> >>> That's all legal, right? >> >> No. When you "answer yes, fully intending to pass..." you have >> not >> made an agreement. You have misled partner into believeing that >> you >> have made an agreement, which is not the same thing at all. If >> you >> alert his bid as forcing, you deliberately mislead your opponents >> by >> pretending to have an agreement knowing you do not. > > Playing against a well-known pair in a KO event, a 1NT response to a > first-seat 1S opening was Announced as forcing, but opener passed it > to me. This sure seemed like a psychic opening since the > vulnerability was favorable for them. In one version of his book on the Kaplan-Sheinwold system, Kaplan wrote that you should pass after 1H-1NT holding a hand like Qxxx Kxxxx Ax KJ. "True, this is a violation of system; the bid is forcing. But the final contract is likely to be a reasonable one." The problem here is that there is no systemic bid; 2C shows three clubs, 2H shows six hearts, and 2S or 2NT shows a stronger hand. Is the fact that you can pass rather than violating system in some other way a CPU, given that there is no CPU that the forcing 1NT denies a game force? (This version of the book did not allow 1NT followed by 3NT to show a balanced hand with no suit worth bidding, nor 1NT planning to rebid 4H over any response.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 14 02:52:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:52:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <33374.68.194.70.218.1255479566.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: Martin Luther King, letter from Birmingham jail, 16th April 1963: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Robert Frick: >...(2) showing 12-14 HCP and a balanced hand. The player actually had >18-19 HCP. But he had a feeling or intuition or some such nonsense. > >I would have changed 1NT making 1 to 2NT down 1... WBF Code of Practice, final sentence: "Decisions should be referenced with Law numbers and it is highly important that the Director in charge or his nominee confirm Law references." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 14 03:27:45 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:27:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57704.68.194.70.218.1255483665.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > Martin Luther King, letter from Birmingham jail, 16th April 1963: > > "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I have a commentary on that letter! http://satyagraha1.com/kingjail.htm Isn't there some irony here? Martin Luther King Jr. did not think that following the laws necessarily led to justice. Um, that is why he was in jail. > > Robert Frick: > >>...(2) showing 12-14 HCP and a balanced hand. The player actually had >>18-19 HCP. But he had a feeling or intuition or some such nonsense. >> >>I would have changed 1NT making 1 to 2NT down 1... > > WBF Code of Practice, final sentence: > > "Decisions should be referenced with Law numbers and it is highly > important that the Director in charge or his nominee confirm Law > references." I suppose there is no Law number for this Code of Practice. I would have used L16B1, he probably used information from partner. If he wants to argue that it was information from opponents, I am glad to hear it. But he didn't say that and I didn't notice anything. If it was information from overhearing the results at another table, he really doesn't have any basis to disagree with my ruling, IMO. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 14 04:49:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:49:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <57704.68.194.70.218.1255483665.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: The Queen of Hearts: "Sentence first, verdict afterwards." Robert Frick, feel-good TD of average intelligence and common sense: >I would have used L16B1, he probably used information from partner. >If he wants to argue that it was information from opponents, I am >glad to hear it...... William ("Kojak") Schoder, 4th October 2004 ".....And, of course, God forbid that playing poorly could result in winning! -- We can't have that, can we? (Somebody, I'm sure, can tell me how you differentiate between intentional bad bridge and stupidity.) 3. Where the Laws do not provide a specific recipe for handling an aberration or infraction (remember to be an INFRACTION OF LAW there has to be a Law that IS INFRACTED!) we just look around for what feels good, and use that. And I could go on and on and bore you with details. 4. In too many cases it's sad that the promulgators expected at least average intelligence and common sense from those who use these laws while performing the duties of a TD....." 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 Oct 14 07:40:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:40:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nietzsche wouldn't teach ya [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, philosopher, 1844-1900: "It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them." Herman De Wael, philosopher, 2005 axiom and conclusion about "damage": [snip] >You say UI is not intrinsically damaging. You are correct in one sense. >It does not damage the opponents. But it does damage the partnership. >The partner with UI is bound by it to take one course of action, where >another could possibly be taken, and be advantageous, in the absence of >UI. In that sense, the creation of the UI is damaging, and I should be >allowed to bend over backwards in not giving UI. The explicit 2007 philosophy in Law 12B1 about damage: "...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..." The explicit 2007 philosophy in Law 73D1 about creation of UI: "...Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is ***not in itself*** an infraction..." Imps: Butler Pairs against a datum Dlr: South Vul: All The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1H 1S 4C (1) X (2) 4H Pass(3) Pass ? (1) Splinter bid (2) Club length and strength (3) Break in tempo, not in itself an infraction You, East, hold: 64 97 853 AKQJ62 What non-damaging (but legal) call do you make? What nom-damaging (but legal) call 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 Wed Oct 14 07:58:27 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:58:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Nietzsche wouldn't teach ya [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24732191.1255499907676.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Imps: Butler Pairs against a datum > Dlr: South > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > 1H 1S 4C (1) X (2) > 4H Pass(3) Pass ? > > (1) Splinter bid > (2) Club length and strength > (3) Break in tempo, not in itself an infraction > > You, East, hold: > > 64 > 97 > 853 > AKQJ62 > > What non-damaging (but legal) call do you make? > What nom-damaging (but legal) call do you consider making? Pass. Not "demonstrably" suggested by the UI, and in any case having bid the hand I cannot think of anything else. Only Jesus saves alone. I guess your point is that 4H went down? Or 5C would have cost 1100? N/S don't get an adjusted score here just because W hesitated. Thomas Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Oct 14 09:21:57 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:21:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001ca4c9f$0401ac50$0c0504f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Hi, Is it possible to find such a story for at least a day per week in the coming year? That will increase my lust to open blml files considerably. And please throw out one of the normal contributions. ton Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >We are too lazy to campaign for law simplifications that may attract >potential players, prolong the existence of the game, and make it even >more fun. Very complex 2007 Law 67B2: After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the Director establishes which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the Director should proceed as follows. 2. (a) When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the Director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards*, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the Director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). Ownership of the defective trick does not change. (b) A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender's hand, and a failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke. * The Director should avoid, when possible, exposing a defender's played cards, but if an extra card to be restored to a defenders hand has been exposed, it becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). Very simple 1963 Law 68(a): When attention is drawn to a defective trick after a player on each side has played to the following trick, the defective trick stands as played and: (a) A player with too few cards plays the remainder of his hand with fewer cards than the other players; he does not play to the final trick (or tricks); and if he wins a trick with his last card, the lead passes in rotation. So under the 1963 Lawbook, there was the "even more fun" possibility of -> NORTH (Dummy) AKJ97543 AQ86 3 --- SOUTH (Declarer) --- --- AKQT AKQJT9632 January 1970 Bridge World, "Fish Kill", Stephen R. Sandler: [snip] "We did finally stop at seven notrump with me declarer. The opening lead -- low club of course. I'll spare you my thoughts of running everything in the hope that somebody would unguard the jack of diamonds or that it would fall. A quick peek had shown that card five times to my right in a hand with no other card above a ten. From the glint of determination in the eyes of the jack-holder and his steely grip on the cards, I knew that jack would not be unguarded." [snip] "I managed to lead my last club with the ten of diamonds concealed under it. The stage was set." [snip] "So I reeled off my top diamonds, producing a simple squeeze at trick 12: NORTH A A --- --- WEST EAST Q --- K --- --- J9 --- --- SOUTH --- --- Q --- I led the diamond queen, and all I had to do was follow West's discard. He threw the spade queen, so I pitched the spade ace and announced that since I now had no more cards my left-hand opponent was on lead. The added pressure was too much for the beleaguered pharmacist. Crying hysterically by this time, he dropped his heart king on the floor, continued to fumble with his wallet and led ... yes ... his Social Security card. I might have been able to handle the situation myself, but some lousy kibitzer called the director when the pharmacist's partner momentarily stopped breathing. After applying artificial respiration for 90 seconds, the director made his decision. The lead of the Social Security card stood. Unless dummy could produce a Social Security card with a higher number (and the director knew as well as I did that Kozinkoff had never worked a day in his life) we would lose the trick." [snip] What's the problem? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 14 10:21:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:21:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001ca4c9f$0401ac50$0c0504f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <001901ca4ca7$56e8fec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Hi, > > Is it possible to find such a story for at least a day per > week in the coming year? > That will increase my lust to open blml files considerably. > And please throw out one of the normal contributions. > > ton > +=+ Normal contributions here are highly abnormal. :-) +=+ From rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Wed Oct 14 11:26:57 2009 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:26:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Damaging misinformation resulting from a systemic error Message-ID: <001501ca4cb0$7a6fc1e0$6f4f45a0$@nl> Playing with screens, the bidding goes (South dealer, EW vulnerable): south west || north east || 1H 1S || 2D dbl 2NT pass || 3NT pass pass pass || East has explained his double to north as Snapdragon: 5 Clubs (the unbid suit) with enough values to play at the two-level. 2D was meant as natural bid by North. After passing the tray to South-West South alerts 2D and explains that it is showing a 3-card heart support. West now states that his partner's double shows diamonds. West is on lead with: AQ982 Q10864 8 A7 Knowing that South cannot develop many tricks in Hearts and expecting that his partner will be able to take the lead in diamonds, west leads a small spade. South picks up the first ten tricks. The full lay-out: 96 -- AKJ10754 Q954 AQ982 1042 Q10864 J95 6 98 A7 KJ1082 KJ7 AK732 Q32 63 When South is in error in his explanation of North's bid it seems obvious, NS being an offending side, that an adjusted score should be awarded - with the correct information West should not have any problem to lead Ace of Clubs followed by het small club, defeating the contract by one trick. But what if North has made a mistake and South's explanation is correct, meaning that now East has been misinformed and consequently has made the wrong bid? Can it be a consideration that without screens East would have received the correct information which would have prevented East from making his double? South may still bid 2NT (East now passing or perhaps bidding 2S), but is North now allowed to bid game, knowing his 2D bid was a mistake and he must avoid to use this UI? Should it be considered that West now may rebid his spades? 3 Spades is making (supposing that North will not find the lead of a small diamond enabling a heart ruff in North...) Thanks! Rob Rob Bosman +31 644 912 363 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091014/cf92e6c5/attachment-0001.html From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Wed Oct 14 13:49:58 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:49:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Damaging misinformation resulting from a systemic error In-Reply-To: <001501ca4cb0$7a6fc1e0$6f4f45a0$@nl> References: <001501ca4cb0$7a6fc1e0$6f4f45a0$@nl> Message-ID: From: Rob Bosman Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:26 AM To: BLML Subject: [BLML] Damaging misinformation resulting from a systemic error Playing with screens, the bidding goes (South dealer, EW vulnerable): south west || north east || 1H 1S || 2D dbl 2NT pass || 3NT pass pass pass || East has explained his double to north as Snapdragon: 5 Clubs (the unbid suit) with enough values to play at the two-level. 2D was meant as natural bid by North. After passing the tray to South-West South alerts 2D and explains that it is showing a 3-card heart support. West now states that his partner's double shows diamonds. West is on lead with: AQ982 Q10864 8 A7 Knowing that South cannot develop many tricks in Hearts and expecting that his partner will be able to take the lead in diamonds, west leads a small spade. South picks up the first ten tricks. The full lay-out: 96 -- AKJ10754 Q954 AQ982 1042 Q10864 J95 6 98 A7 KJ1082 KJ7 AK732 Q32 63 When South is in error in his explanation of North's bid it seems obvious, NS being an offending side, that an adjusted score should be awarded - with the correct information West should not have any problem to lead Ace of Clubs followed by het small club, defeating the contract by one trick. But what if North has made a mistake and South's explanation is correct, meaning that now East has been misinformed and consequently has made the wrong bid? Can it be a consideration that without screens East would have received the correct information which would have prevented East from making his double? South may still bid 2NT (East now passing or perhaps bidding 2S), but is North now allowed to bid game, knowing his 2D bid was a mistake and he must avoid to use this UI? Should it be considered that West now may rebid his spades? 3 Spades is making (supposing that North will not find the lead of a small diamond enabling a heart ruff in North...) If South has given the correct explanation - North has given East the incorrect information albeit that his explanation matches his hand it is not an explanation of North South's system. It may even be that North South don't have a very clear agreement. Where different explanations are given on each side of the screen, any confusion or damage to the non-offending side will normally result in adjustment - Presumably Snapdragon would not apply over 2D showing Heart support so East would not have doubled and the Td should adjust accordingly Mike Thanks! Rob Rob Bosman +31 644 912 363 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20091014/267e7031/attachment.html From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Wed Oct 14 15:15:54 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:15:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD5CF0A.3090107@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] Try this thought experiment: If the rules of football mandated a six month ban for physically injuring an opponent, I feel that the game would become much more violent. If a football player is going to be banned for six months for injuring his left hand opponent, then to make it worth while the football player will break both legs of his LHO, so that the LHO is also out of the game for six months. It is easy to build arbitrary thought experiments which satisfy your prejudices. For example, many years ago a blmler developed a thought experiment that it was "obvious" that "many" experts "must" be using reverse hesitations. But a thought experiment has no validity until tested, when counter-intuitive results may arise (such as Israeli economists being surprised to discover that guilt is sometimes more of a sanction than a monetary fine). [Nigel] Good stuff Richard! I should have replied to this earlier. If the rules of Football were modelled on Brige-laws and concerned mainly with *Equity* - then Richard would have a point :) The "director" would do his best to restore the status-quo, so that the play in progress could continue. The director would cruelly force the offender to relinquish the illegally acquired ball. He would then offer redress to the broken-legged victim by returning the ball to him. We Bridge-players are familiar with analogous scenarios :) My interest, however, is with *deterrent* laws :) In Richard's example, the suggested rule-change could at least double the ban for an offender who inflicted two separate injuries. :( Ordinary criminal and civil law might also "kick-in". In the law-courts, the offender could try to pass off the first broken leg as an accident but the second might be harder to explain The offender would probably spend some of his retirement in prison; and he could be sued for damages :) From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 14 15:45:34 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:45:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <5D3DE241-9B4D-4D63-85CB-A9D028A4F177@starpower.net> On Oct 13, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:37:47 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:04:32 -0400, >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Robert Frick: >>>> >>>>> ...Suppose I ask "Is your system such that it is sometimes wise to >>> pass >>>>> the forcing no trump?" >>>> >>>> Richard Hills: >>>> >>>> "Yes" is the only truthful answer from 100% of players who use the >>>> forcing >>>> no trump convention. >>> >>> >>> Then why play it as forcing? Are you planning on bidding even >>> when you >>> think a pass is wise? >> >> You play it as forcing because you think that playing it as forcing >> offers >> the best percentages. >> >> You then pass partner's forcing bid because you think that passing >> his >> forcing bid offers the best percentages. > > Are there particular hands where you always would pass because it > offers > the best percentages. And if so why can't you figure them out in > advance? > And if so, why aren't you obligated to warn the opponents? Because you have no obligation to have or make partnership agreements that define a "systemic" bid with every possible hand you could hold. Because the game would be unplayable if you did. > Or does it depend on facial expressions or hesitations or whatever > from > the opponents and/or partner? It may very well depend on facial expressions or hesitations or whatever from the opponents (see L73D), but not from partner (see L73A-B). I suspect Bob knows this. >> You have xx,xx,xx,xxxxxxx. Partner opens 1C, strong club, RHO passes. >> What do you do? Respond 1D and let opener torture you >> with whatever comes next? >> Myself, I pass. > > Then why not admit that is your system? Because it isn't. It is understood (i.e. "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] that it is not illegal to pass a bid which has been agreed as forcing, and that therefore a player may take a flyer and choose to do so when he believes it is the best chance to maximize his expected result. To call that "your system" would falsely suggest a disclosable agreement (explicit or implicit) as to the nature of the hands on which one would be expected to pass. But passing a bid spontaneously and unexpectedly, based on a judgment of the moment, does not mean that it wasn't forcing by agreement. I suspect that more than half of a bidding panel would pass a strong, artificial, forcing 1C opening with Thomas's example hand (at least at matchpoints), and nobody would think they had violated the stated conditions. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 14 15:59:17 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:59:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: <4AD4EC6C.9050408@consolidated.net> References: <4AD4EC6C.9050408@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <551B1E00-212C-4A75-8EA7-93E847898624@starpower.net> On Oct 13, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Robert Park wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: > >> You are saying that if they ever in the past have passed the >> "forcing" 1NT, then it is not forcing, but if they would pass the >> forcing 1NT some time in the next minute, as long as they have >> never done it in the past, the 1NT is forcing. The opponents want >> to know what system they players are playing this hand. In the >> actual example, I asked South if North had ever passed his forcing >> no trump and he said no, but they hadn't been playing together >> that long. Bob, who if he ever visits the South Canberra Bridge >> Club is planning on agreeing with partner to play all bids as >> forcing. > > Perhaps this is why Edgar preferred "intended as forcing" as the > message to opponents. I don't know what he actually said at the > table, though, or what the ACBL might say about such a statement. > But I have used it in the past, and no one has ever objected. And > the bid has on occasion been passed. "Intended as forcing" is a useful formulation; it suggests an explicit agreement that the bid is forcing combined with an implicit understanding that it might be nonetheless passed. It is not uncommon to hear an explanation along the lines of, "It's forcing, but he has been known to pass it in the past." That's a responsive, and presumably accurate, description. To describe such a bid as "not forcing" would be misleading and improper. To describe it as "not forcing" when partner has not been known to pass it in the past, just because it's conceivable that he might someday -- as Bob would seem to want us to do -- would be even worse. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 14 17:57:09 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:57:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: <5D3DE241-9B4D-4D63-85CB-A9D028A4F177@starpower.net> References: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <5D3DE241-9B4D-4D63-85CB-A9D028A4F177@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4AD5F4D5.605@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > Because it isn't. It is understood (i.e. "knowledge and experience > of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] that it is > not illegal to pass a bid which has been agreed as forcing, and that > therefore a player may take a flyer and choose to do so when he > believes it is the best chance to maximize his expected result. To > call that "your system" would falsely suggest a disclosable agreement > (explicit or implicit) as to the nature of the hands on which one > would be expected to pass. But passing a bid spontaneously and > unexpectedly, based on a judgment of the moment, does not mean that > it wasn't forcing by agreement. I suspect that more than half of a > bidding panel would pass a strong, artificial, forcing 1C opening > with Thomas's example hand (at least at matchpoints) AG : I differ on that one. I'm not ready to pretend that more than half of the players using strong clubs, who didn't discuss the possibility of passing in extreme cases, would risk doing so. And if so many would, there would be a consensus among strong-clubbers that it might be done. You can't pretend it's out of the system anymore. Twice in my career I passed a Benji 2C, but it denies a game-going hand, and it isn't explicitly described as forcing anyway. Best regards Alain PS : at pairs, don't you want to play 1S on those ? AKxxx xx AKx xx KQxx xx x xxxxxxx From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 14 23:33:10 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:33:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AD5F4D5.605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >>I suspect that more than half of a bidding panel would pass a >>strong, artificial, forcing 1C opening with Thomas's example >>hand (at least at matchpoints) Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I differ on that one. [snip] >PS : at pairs, don't you want to play 1S on those ? > >AKxxx xx >AKx xx >KQxx xx >x xxxxxxx Ali Hills 1C (1) 1D (2) 1H (3) 1S (4) Pass (1) Artificial, strong (2) Artificial, weak (3) Artificial, stronger (4) Artificial, weaker It is because we play this 1H gadget that I have not passed partner's strong 1C in the past twenty-odd years (since I know that pard will not leap to show strength, and thus get us too high). So perhaps our "never-ever pass 1C" understanding should be pre- alerted, making it easier for an opponent with an unexpectedly good hand to lurk in the bushes with a trap pass. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 15 02:23:33 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:23:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nietzsche wouldn't teach ya [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <24732191.1255499907676.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: "The Fabulous Law Book uses the Aristotelian Principle of the Excluded Middle. There is no such animal as a semi- implicit partnership understanding." Monty Python, Bruces' philosophers song, penultimate verse: Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle. Hobbes was fond of his dram, And Ren? Descartes was a drunken fart. "I drink, therefore I am." Imps: Butler Pairs against a datum Dlr: South Vul: All The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1H 1S 4C (1) X (2) 4H Pass(3) Pass ? (1) Splinter bid (2) Club length and strength (3) Break in tempo, not in itself an infraction You, East, hold: 64 97 853 AKQJ62 What non-damaging (but legal) call do you make? What nom-damaging (but legal) call do you consider making? Thomas Dehn (14th October 2009): >Pass. Not "demonstrably" suggested by the UI... Nigel Guthrie (8th November 2004): >>...Hence, a hesitation followed by a pass usually denotes >>amorphous grot. Richard Hills: So by the Guthrie Unified Theory (GUT), West's slow pass demonstrably suggests that East also pass, so therefore East is required to select a non-pass whenever a pass by East is not East's only logical alternative. The complete deal was yet another counter-example (out of many zillions) to Nigel's GUT feeling. Brd: 23 K73 Dlr: South KQ32 Vul: All KQ964 9 AJ9852 64 J4 97 T 853 8753 AKQJ62 QT AT865 AJ72 T4 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Dorothy Richard 1H 1S 4C (1) X (2) 4H Pass(3) Pass 4S (4) Pass(5) Pass X (6) Pass Pass Pass (1) Splinter bid. (2) Club length and strength. (3) Grot, but not amorphous grot. Holding 4-card club support West contemplated bidding the cheap save in 5C (for -500 instead of -650), but West eventually decided to be wimpy, wimpy, wimpy. (4) Just in case West's break in tempo was based upon a six- card spade suit rather than upon club support. (5) Most blmlers would describe this pass as "forcing". No doubt Bob Frick would give a different description. :-) :-) (6) Given that 5H is cold, no doubt some ACBL Directors would rule my double to be a wild or gambling action. The Chief Director of Australia, however, had no hesitation in changing our table score of +500 to +650. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 15 03:39:00 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:39:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: <5D3DE241-9B4D-4D63-85CB-A9D028A4F177@starpower.net> References: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <5D3DE241-9B4D-4D63-85CB-A9D028A4F177@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:45:34 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 13, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:37:47 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:04:32 -0400, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Robert Frick: >>>>> >>>>>> ...Suppose I ask "Is your system such that it is sometimes wise to >>>> pass >>>>>> the forcing no trump?" >>>>> >>>>> Richard Hills: >>>>> >>>>> "Yes" is the only truthful answer from 100% of players who use the >>>>> forcing >>>>> no trump convention. >>>> >>>> >>>> Then why play it as forcing? Are you planning on bidding even >>>> when you >>>> think a pass is wise? >>> >>> You play it as forcing because you think that playing it as forcing >>> offers >>> the best percentages. >>> >>> You then pass partner's forcing bid because you think that passing >>> his >>> forcing bid offers the best percentages. >> >> Are there particular hands where you always would pass because it >> offers >> the best percentages. And if so why can't you figure them out in >> advance? >> And if so, why aren't you obligated to warn the opponents? > > Because you have no obligation to have or make partnership agreements > that define a "systemic" bid with every possible hand you could > hold. Because the game would be unplayable if you did. Do you really want to allow players to have as big of holes as they want? I would love to come to your club and play the prototype system. In that system 1NT shows 4-3-3-3 distribution with 16 HCP. Opening 1 of a minor and rebidding 1NT shows flat distribution and 13 HCP. That leaves no systemic bid for balanced hands with 14 or 15 HCP. And it goes on like that -- a weak two shows a six-card suit with exactly 8 HCP. With a six-card suit and only 3 HCP, you pass. With 15 HCP, you open your suit at the 1 level. With a five-card major, you open 1 of the major with 15 HCP and pass with 8 HCP. Ando of course if you happen to get a hand that there is no system bid for, you choose the bid that seems like it will work best. So it is functionally equivalent to Standard American. Speaking of players who will come to your club, do you allow them to describe a 2C response to a forcing no trump as showing 3 clubs, just because they never realized they had no bid for the 4-5-2-2 distribution? Opponents who know 2/1 can protect themselves. But opponents who do not know that system have no protection. Or what about my pair who agreed to play 5-card majors, the 1 Di opening showing 4 Di, and the 1 Cl opening showing 3 clubs. Eventually they ran into a 4-4-3-2 distibution, they did not alert the 1 Cl opening as possibly being short (as required at our club), and RHO was damaged. > >> Or does it depend on facial expressions or hesitations or whatever >> from >> the opponents and/or partner? > > It may very well depend on facial expressions or hesitations or > whatever from the opponents (see L73D), but not from partner (see > L73A-B). I suspect Bob knows this. I know that players never use facial expressions from partner? > >>> You have xx,xx,xx,xxxxxxx. Partner opens 1C, strong club, RHO passes. >>> What do you do? Respond 1D and let opener torture you >>> with whatever comes next? >>> Myself, I pass. >> >> Then why not admit that is your system? > > Because it isn't. It is understood (i.e. "knowledge and experience > of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] that it is > not illegal to pass a bid which has been agreed as forcing, and that > therefore a player may take a flyer and choose to do so when he > believes it is the best chance to maximize his expected result. To > call that "your system" would falsely suggest a disclosable agreement > (explicit or implicit) as to the nature of the hands on which one > would be expected to pass. But passing a bid spontaneously and > unexpectedly, based on a judgment of the moment, does not mean that > it wasn't forcing by agreement. I suspect that more than half of a > bidding panel would pass a strong, artificial, forcing 1C opening > with Thomas's example hand (at least at matchpoints), and nobody > would think they had violated the stated conditions. So why call it forcing? Richard makes the excellent point that in his system, he is much less likely to pass 1C than other forcing 1C systems. Am I as opponent not entitled to know that? To return to the original example, the probability of passing the "forcing" 1NT probably depends on whether they are playing Drury. I have to look on the card for that. I assume I can also ask about that. But what if I have never heard of Drury, or there might be other relevant conventions. I can't just be allowed to know the probability that the forcing bid might be passed? From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 15 03:54:43 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:54:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) Message-ID: Short: The law apparently does not require players to explain the inferences from bids that could be made later in the auction. The Situation You Know: When a Precision player opens 1Di, we know that they can't explain their bid as "opening hand with no other opening bid." That might be the complete verbal agreement, and maybe they never played before so their is no implicit agreement based on experience. But L20F1 is clear that the opps are entitled to "relevant inferences from the choice of action". In other words, the opponents don't have to piece together the opponents' entire system to figure out what 1Di means -- the people playing the system do that for them. For "Forcing": It seems that the analogous thing does NOT happen for describing a bid as forcing. Consider your ordinary Precision 1C, and Richard's 1C which seems about the same. I, as poor opponent, want to know if that bid is forcing. "Yes." Does that mean it can't be passed? "No, of course it can be passed, have you never played bridge before?" Now I would like to know the probability of it being passed. It turns out the the probability is much less in Richard's system, because they show very strong bids with the 1H rebid, not with a jump. Am I entitled to this information? As I read the law, I am not. It is an implication from a bid that could be made later in the auction. Am I missing something? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Oct 15 04:09:34 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:09:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Damaging misinformation resulting from a systemic error In-Reply-To: <001501ca4cb0$7a6fc1e0$6f4f45a0$@nl> References: <001501ca4cb0$7a6fc1e0$6f4f45a0$@nl> Message-ID: <5498A1599D3F4C97B97CABA940CC76F1@erdos> If North's explanation (or lack of it, since 2D was not alerted and is assumed natural) is inconsistent with the N-S agreements, we need to determine what would be likely if E-W had been given correct information. East would not bid 3C over a natural 2D; rather, he would either pass or bid 2S. South would still bid 2NT, and North, having no misinformation, would bid 3NT. On this auction, is it likely, or at all probable, that West would lead a doubleton CA? Certainly not at matchpoints, when the CA is likely to cost an overtick or two if the contract is unbeatable, and may cost an undertrick if it is beatable. And probably not even at IMPs; a spade lead will beat the contract if the diamonds are not running unless South has four spades, and the CA could be costly when partner has not shown club strength, and could even cost the contract if the opponents can take one spade, two hearts, three diamonds (East stops the suit with JTxx), and three clubs. Therefore, if I am convinced that the correct agreement is that 2D is a heart raise, I would rule that East was misinformed but not damaged. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Bosman To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 5:26 AM Subject: [BLML] Damaging misinformation resulting from a systemic error Playing with screens, the bidding goes (South dealer, EW vulnerable): south west || north east || 1H 1S || 2D dbl 2NT pass || 3NT pass pass pass || East has explained his double to north as Snapdragon: 5 Clubs (the unbid suit) with enough values to play at the two-level. 2D was meant as natural bid by North. After passing the tray to South-West South alerts 2D and explains that it is showing a 3-card heart support. West now states that his partner's double shows diamonds. West is on lead with: AQ982 Q10864 8 A7 Knowing that South cannot develop many tricks in Hearts and expecting that his partner will be able to take the lead in diamonds, west leads a small spade. South picks up the first ten tricks. The full lay-out: 96 -- AKJ10754 Q954 AQ982 1042 Q10864 J95 6 98 A7 KJ1082 KJ7 AK732 Q32 63 When South is in error in his explanation of North's bid it seems obvious, NS being an offending side, that an adjusted score should be awarded - with the correct information West should not have any problem to lead Ace of Clubs followed by het small club, defeating the contract by one trick. But what if North has made a mistake and South's explanation is correct, meaning that now East has been misinformed and consequently has made the wrong bid? Can it be a consideration that without screens East would have received the correct information which would have prevented East from making his double? South may still bid 2NT (East now passing or perhaps bidding 2S), but is North now allowed to bid game, knowing his 2D bid was a mistake and he must avoid to use this UI? Should it be considered that West now may rebid his spades? 3 Spades is making (supposing that North will not find the lead of a small diamond enabling a heart ruff in North...) Thanks! Rob Rob Bosman +31 644 912 363 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20091015/0e77f706/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 15 05:22:03 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:22:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >...Richard makes the excellent point that in his system, he is much less >likely to pass 1C than other forcing 1C systems. Am I as opponent not >entitled to know that?... [parallel thread] >...Now I would like to know the probability of it being passed. > >It turns out the probability is much less in Richard's system, because >they show very strong bids with the 1H rebid, not with a jump. Am I >entitled to this information? As I read the law, I am not. It is an >implication from a bid that could be made later in the auction. > >Am I missing something? Something Law 40A1(b): "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done." Richard Hills: The 2007 Law 20F (Explanation of Calls) was designed to be more powerful than the 2007 Law 40A1(b). Sessions would be decades long if ***all*** of one's partnership understandings were explained in advance. On the other hand, asking about ***just one*** sequence which is actually being bid now at the table is much less time-consuming. A Regulating Authority is empowered to limit ***advance*** disclosure to what the RA thinks is important (see below), but the RA may not ever prohibit any particular type of Law 20F questions -- at best the RA may regulate for written Law 20F questions. Something Law 40B2(a), second and third sentences: "It may prescribe a System Card with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership's understandings, and regulate its use. The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods." Richard Hills: The sticking point is that the ABF Regulating Authority requires my partnership to list our artificial and strong 1C opening on our System Card, and also our artificial and weak 1D response on our System Card, but the ABF Regulating Authority does _not_ require my partnership to list our artificial and stronger 1H rebid on our System Card. Therefore, if Bob visited the South Canberra Bridge Club, Bob would _not_ know that I was less likely than most to pass my partner's strong 1C unless and until Hashmat and I had an auction commencing 1C - 1D - 1H. 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 Oct 15 07:23:26 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:23:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901ca4ca7$56e8fec0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: " Allergy warning: May contain traces of nuts; may also contain traces of other nuts." "The most dangerous part of a car is the nut behind the wheel." Ton Kooijman: Hi, Is it possible to find such a story for at least a day per week in the coming year? That will increase my lust to open blml files considerably. And please throw out one of the normal contributions. ton Grattan Endicott, normal paradox: +=+ Normal contributions here are highly abnormal. :-) +=+ Todd M. Zimnoch, April 2005, abnormal contribution: [snip] If opponents can demand to know my knowledge of my partner as I've experienced as a kibitzer, opponent, or TD, my opponents may as well be allowed to ask the people at the next table or the TD himself. Those people might have more such knowledge than myself anyways. Richard Hills, April 2005, normal contribution: Let us put some flesh on the bones of the hypothetical blml AC vote on the hypothetical appeal by a hypothetical appellant Wayne Burrows against a hypothetical TD Richard Hills. The Scene: The first board of the first round of a walk-in pairs at the 2006 Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. Wayne Burrows is partnering Tasmanian personality Hilda R. Lirsch for the first time. Their opponents are John (MadDog) Probst and David W. Stevenson. The bidding has gone: David Wayne John Hilda 1D Pass 1H 1NT ? It is general bridge knowledge to all four experts at the table that this sandwich 1NT has one of two meanings, either: (a) the old-fashioned inferior meaning, strong and balanced, or (b) the modern superior meaning, weak distributional takeout. David asks Wayne to describe the partnership agreement of Hilda's 1NT call. Wayne and Hilda have not explicitly discussed the meaning of this 1NT call in their 5-minute chat before the session. Therefore, Wayne's reply to David is, "Undiscussed." However.... Wayne has read a prepublication copy of "A History of Tasmanian Bridge", loaned to him by its author, TD Richard Hills. When returning it to Richard Hills, Wayne made a deprecating comment to Richard Hills about the page 42 reference to Hilda Lirsch, which stated, "Due to a personality quirk, Hilda Lirsch's sandwich 1NT overcalls, in all of her partnerships, have always had the old-fashioned inferior meaning of strong and balanced." After David and John go -1100, Hilda calls TD Richard Hills to the table, alleging that her partner, Wayne, gave misinformation. The TD agrees, ruling that Wayne's actual explanation should have been, "We have an implicit agreement that 1NT is strong and balanced, because I have read page 42 of 'A History of Tasmanian Bridge'." Therefore, TD Richard Hills adjusts the score from -1100 to -180. With Hilda's Law 92D permission, Wayne appeals the TD decision. As AC, how would you rule? Richard Hills, October 2009, normal contribution: Firstly, Wayne Burrows noted in 2005 that "hypothetical Wayne Burrows" was a misnomer; it should instead be "a Wayne Burrows identity fraudster", since Wayne has never used a sandwich 1NT to show a weak distributional hand. Secondly, since this problem was posed, the 2007 Lawbook has added 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." However, suppose that Hilda R. Lirsch was unaware that the Wayne Burrows identity fraudster had read page 42 of "A History of Tasmanian Bridge". Does the Lirsch-fraudster partnership have _mutual_ awareness, given that Hilda does not know what her partner knows about Hilda? What's the anagram? 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 Oct 15 07:26:51 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:26:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12663449.1255584411695.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > Short: The law apparently does not require players to explain the > inferences from bids that could be made later in the auction. > > The Situation You Know: When a Precision player opens 1Di, we know that > they can't explain their bid as "opening hand with no other opening bid." > That might be the complete verbal agreement, and maybe they never played > before so their is no implicit agreement based on experience. But L20F1 is > clear that the opps are entitled to "relevant inferences from the choice > of action". In other words, the opponents don't have to piece together the > opponents' entire system to figure out what 1Di means -- the people > playing the system do that for them. > > For "Forcing": It seems that the analogous thing does NOT happen for > describing a bid as forcing. Consider your ordinary Precision 1C, and > Richard's 1C which seems about the same. I, as poor opponent, want to know > if that bid is forcing. "Yes." Does that mean it can't be passed? "No, of > course it can be passed, have you never played bridge before?" Now I would > like to know the probability of it being passed. Robert, I'd like to know the probability with which you will overcall my perfectly natural 2H weak two (6-10 HCP) with anything other than a double or a natural 2S or a strong, natural 2NT bid. Can you give me such a percentage? > It turns out the the probability is much less in Richard's system, because > they show very strong bids with the 1H rebid, not with a jump. Am I > entitled to this information? As I read the law, I am not. It is an > implication from a bid that could be made later in the auction. > > Am I missing something? Surely you can read a convention card., and surely Richard brings convention cards to the table. Thomas Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 15 09:40:31 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:40:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Todd M. Zimnoch, April 2005, abnormal contribution: > > [snip] > > If opponents can demand to know my knowledge of my partner as > I've experienced as a kibitzer, opponent, or TD, my opponents > may as well be allowed to ask the people at the next table or > the TD himself. Those people might have more such knowledge > than myself anyways. > There is no contradiction, or abnormality. Full disclosure is a hypothetical situation. It is written in the passive voice. Opponent are entitled to know "everything", regardless of whether the partner knows it or not. Once you have crossed that hurdle, there are no "strange" situations any more. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 15 09:52:45 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:52:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Todd M. Zimnoch, April 2005, abnormal contribution: >> >> [snip] >> >> If opponents can demand to know my knowledge of my partner as >> I've experienced as a kibitzer, opponent, or TD, my opponents >> may as well be allowed to ask the people at the next table or >> the TD himself. Those people might have more such knowledge >> than myself anyways. >> >> > > There is no contradiction, or abnormality. > > Full disclosure is a hypothetical situation. It is written in the > passive voice. Opponent are entitled to know "everything", regardless of > whether the partner knows it or not. Once you have crossed that hurdle, > there are no "strange" situations any more. > > AG : I read TFLB in a slightly different manner. Opponents are allowed to know 1) everything about our system and 2) everything about my partner's style and habits when playing with me. Are they allowed to know partner's style of habits in other partnerships ? (as I know them from e.g. kibitzing) This information is often irrelevant, and could be misleading. e.g. X. tends to bid NT in fornt of some of his partners ; does it mean anything about how he will act facing me ? Therefore, it would be better if the answer was to the negative. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 15 11:12:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:12:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Damaging misinformation resulting from a systemic error References: <001501ca4cb0$7a6fc1e0$6f4f45a0$@nl> <5498A1599D3F4C97B97CABA940CC76F1@erdos> Message-ID: <007401ca4d77$a5b94570$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <001501ca4cb0$7a6fc1e0$6f4f45a0$@nl> <5498A1599D3F4C97B97CABA940CC76F1@erdos> <007401ca4d77$a5b94570$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4AD6ED8A.80903@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Grabiner > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:09 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Damaging misinformation resulting > from a systemic error > > > If North's explanation (or lack of it, since 2D was not > alerted and is assumed natural) is inconsistent with the > N-S agreements, we need to determine what would > be likely if E-W had been given correct information. > East would not bid 3C over a natural 2D; rather, he > would either pass or bid 2S. AG : IBTD. He would double. We know it is their system. In that case, the club lead vould be rather plausible. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 15 12:14:49 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:14:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] AG : I read TFLB in a slightly different manner. Opponents are allowed to know 1) everything about our system and 2) everything about my partner's style and habits when playing with me. Are they allowed to know partner's style of habits in other partnerships ? (as I know them from e.g. kibitzing) This information is often irrelevant, and could be misleading. e.g. X. tends to bid NT in fornt of some of his partners ; does it mean anything about how he will act facing me ? Therefore, it would be better if the answer was to the negative. +=+ Hmmm.... Say...... (1) An internationally famous bridge professional gives a lecture at your club in which he recommends a way of treating a particular problem; or (2) Mr Clever Clogs at your club pulls off a coup that is the talk of the club. In neither case do you discuss the situation with your partner but, bless us, here we are in just that situation a couple of weeks later.... you decide to rely on your mutual knowledge and , lo and behold, it turns out that so did partner. You said nothing to opponents.... Concealed partnership understanding? See Law 40A1. You know what partner does in other partnerships but, neglectfully, have never discussed it. You rely on it. If you turn out to be right to do so? Hmmm ........ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 15 12:38:52 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:38:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > (1) An internationally famous bridge professional gives > a lecture at your club in which he recommends a way of > treating a particular problem; or > (2) Mr Clever Clogs at your club pulls off a coup that > is the talk of the club. > In neither case do you discuss the situation with your > partner but, bless us, here we are in just that situation a > couple of weeks later.... you decide to rely on your mutual > knowledge and , lo and behold, it turns out that so did partner. > AG : This is a different situation. I prefer handling case (a). If said international was convincing enough, it could be that it created in our partnership a more or less conscious agreement to do so. But that's not the case I tackled. I spoke of partner's agreements with other players, in the case when they don't influence ours. Specifying them wouldn't be useful to opponents, it could even mislead them into believing they're relevant, for why would you have mentioned them ? > You said nothing to opponents.... > Concealed partnership understanding? > See Law 40A1. > You know what partner does in other partnerships but, > neglectfully, have never discussed it. You rely on it. If you > turn out to be right to do so? > If you do rely on it, then there is an agreement. What I meant is that, in most cases, it doens't work so. Your partner's understandings in other parnerships are unknown to you, or don't impress you, and in that case, opponents need not be informaed. The rule is easy : a) if it is part of your understandings, in any form, tell it to the opponents. If "you rely on it", then you've an implicit understanding. In such a case, I'd say 'It could well be ... but no guarantees' b) if not, don't, and it irrelevant whether other well-known partnerships do use it. Just consider the abstract case when you know that partner uses agreement X with John and agreement Y with Jack. Neither of those players do impress you by their knowledge of bidding theory. You don't know which one partner used here. You're compelled to : - make some bid at your turn, and this will take into account your guess (possibly totally random) as to whether it's X or Y. - explain them the agreement is either X or Y, but you don't know which. You're not compelled to cite your sources (gneral rule : you aren't compelled to say whether it's in your notes, or you read it in a magazine, or somebody taught it to you). You're not compelled to say he uses X with John and Y with Jack. Best regards Alain I From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Oct 15 15:04:17 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:04:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AD71DD1.1020204@yahoo.co.uk> [Richard Hills] Old answer. The Fabulous Law Book uses the Aristotelian Principle of the Excluded Middle. There is no such animal as a semi-implicit partnership understanding. [Nigel] Again I disagree with Richard . IMO The law should be clarified to mandate that even undiscussed and tentative understandings should be disclosed. For example you guess what partner probably means because - - you have discussed and rejected alternative meanings *in other similar contexts*. - you both have that agreement with a *third party* or - you both have recently read the *same book* or read the *same article* or attended the *same lecture* or - the agreement is a *popular local agreement* in your group or - From your hand you deduce that partner has made a mistake or psyched; but partner rarely psyches; and you think it more likely that he has forgotten your current agreement and *reverted to your previous agreement* . These inferences are *uncertain* but IMO they should should still be disclosed. Some may be *unilateral* in the sense that partner cannot be at all confident that you know what he probably intends. Such problems would miraculously disappear if the law mandated that "if you don't know, you must make your best guess" and if the law explicitly suggested that "unless there are written explanations, partner should be asked to leave the table before you speculate on the meaning of his call". Finally (although a bit off this topic, but another bone of contention between Richard and me): Suppose you agree with partner to play the complete Precision Club, as defined by some author's book; unfortunately, unknown to the other, one or both of you forgets to read a bit of it. IMO, this is still your agreement. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 15 16:14:02 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:14:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AD71DD1.1020204@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> <4AD71DD1.1020204@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4AD72E2A.6090902@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Nigel] > Again I disagree with Richard . IMO The law should be > clarified to mandate that even undiscussed and tentative understandings > should be disclosed. For example you guess what partner probably means > because - > - you have discussed and rejected alternative meanings *in other similar > contexts*. > - you both have that agreement with a *third party* or > - you both have recently read the *same book* or read the *same article* > or attended the *same lecture* or > - the agreement is a *popular local agreement* in your group or > - From your hand you deduce that partner has made a mistake or psyched; > but partner rarely psyches; and you think it more likely that he has > forgotten your current agreement and *reverted to your previous agreement* . > I had such an interesting case in our last match You hold K - Axxx - 10xxx - xxxx and the bidding goes : 1C pass 1NT 2D What does partner hold ? Diamonds ? Where are the spades ? My guess was that he didn't see the opening and bid an Astro-like 2D over the opening 1NT. I was right. The other guess would have been that he wanted to bid 2C (Landy over 1C p 1NT) or 2S and pulled the wrong card. I insist on this case, because it shows that it's perfectly possible to guess what partner has even though it is contrary to your agreements. Now, do you think I should have alerted his intended meaning ? Even dWS doesn't tell us to do so in this case. But I'd like to ask to all who pretend that, if partner bids X to mean YY and you guess it correctly, it means you've an agreement that X shows YY, to remember this case, which clearly shows the contrary. As a matter of fact, we have an agreement that 2D is natural in this situaiton. > Such problems would miraculously disappear if the law mandated that "if > you don't know, you must make your best guess" and if the law explicitly > suggested that "unless there are written explanations, partner should be > asked to leave the table before you speculate on the meaning of his call". > AG : this would be a step towards fairness, but it wouldn't cover the case above, where you know perfectly well what your system is, and you know perfectly well that parner intended to mean something else. Actually, showing doubt (e.g. by sending him away) would help him realize his mistake, which is illegal. Best regards alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 15 16:20:32 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:20:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: <4AD5F4D5.605@ulb.ac.be> References: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <5D3DE241-9B4D-4D63-85CB-A9D028A4F177@starpower.net> <4AD5F4D5.605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6E07291D-736A-4FB4-871A-F0BB04CCFE67@starpower.net> On Oct 14, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Because it isn't. It is understood (i.e. "knowledge and experience >> of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] that it is >> not illegal to pass a bid which has been agreed as forcing, and that >> therefore a player may take a flyer and choose to do so when he >> believes it is the best chance to maximize his expected result. To >> call that "your system" would falsely suggest a disclosable agreement >> (explicit or implicit) as to the nature of the hands on which one >> would be expected to pass. But passing a bid spontaneously and >> unexpectedly, based on a judgment of the moment, does not mean that >> it wasn't forcing by agreement. I suspect that more than half of a >> bidding panel would pass a strong, artificial, forcing 1C opening >> with Thomas's example hand (at least at matchpoints) > > AG : I differ on that one. > > I'm not ready to pretend that more than half of the players using > strong > clubs, who didn't discuss the possibility of passing in extreme cases, > would risk doing so. I admit I haven't taken a survey, nor am I much of a forcing-club player myself, but I'd go so far as to suggest that anyone who doesn't at least consider passing 1C with the example hand doesn't really understand matchpoints. I haven't tried to work out the IMP odds, but I'd be surprised if they revealed passing to be totally crazy. > And if so many would, there would be a consensus among strong-clubbers > that it might be done. I suspect that if you gave them the example hand as a matchpoint bidding problem, they would think about it, perhaps for the first time, and many would. Not a consensus for passing with the example hand, perhaps, but a consensus that "it might be done" with a suitable hand and under suitable circumstances. > You can't pretend it's out of the system anymore. I don't see how you can pretend that it's "in" the system, given that there are no hands on which the system mandates passing, so that failing to pass denies no possible holdings, and that there are no hands on which one might pass for which the system does not explicitly mandate some other call. And even those who might choose a pass over the systemic 1D in a bidding contest will not do so every time under any circumstances. But players may, and do, choose to risk taking a flyer with a non-systemic action, and it must be "general bridge knowledge" that you're allowed to pass if you think your side is already in the right contract regardless of what your bidding system dictates. When you pass out 1C, you're just making a call that is undefined in your system. I don't see why this should "offend" the disclosure requirements (the original issue in this thread) any more than when you make any other call that is undefined in your system. > Twice in my career I passed a Benji 2C, but it denies a game-going > hand, > and it isn't explicitly described as forcing anyway. > > PS : at pairs, don't you want to play 1S on those ? > > AKxxx xx > AKx xx > KQxx xx > x xxxxxxx Of course. And I want to play 6S when partner has AQJ109876/AK/ AKQ/-, which he might also. But matchpoints is a game of frequency, and by far partner's most likely hand is a strong NT, opposite which 1C will almost surely be the best contract, and if I respond I'll get overboard and go down much of the time. Yes, passing could result in a very silly-looking major disaster, which is why the system doesn't allow it, and why I categorize it as "taking a flyer with a non-systemic action". But there's a difference between taking a flyer and repudiating your system. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 15 16:49:31 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:49:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: <6E07291D-736A-4FB4-871A-F0BB04CCFE67@starpower.net> References: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <5D3DE241-9B4D-4D63-85CB-A9D028A4F177@starpower.net> <4AD5F4D5.605@ulb.ac.be> <6E07291D-736A-4FB4-871A-F0BB04CCFE67@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4AD7367B.4090500@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Oct 14, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >>> Because it isn't. It is understood (i.e. "knowledge and experience >>> of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] that it is >>> not illegal to pass a bid which has been agreed as forcing, and that >>> therefore a player may take a flyer and choose to do so when he >>> believes it is the best chance to maximize his expected result. To >>> call that "your system" would falsely suggest a disclosable agreement >>> (explicit or implicit) as to the nature of the hands on which one >>> would be expected to pass. But passing a bid spontaneously and >>> unexpectedly, based on a judgment of the moment, does not mean that >>> it wasn't forcing by agreement. I suspect that more than half of a >>> bidding panel would pass a strong, artificial, forcing 1C opening >>> with Thomas's example hand (at least at matchpoints) >>> >> AG : I differ on that one. >> >> I'm not ready to pretend that more than half of the players using >> strong >> clubs, who didn't discuss the possibility of passing in extreme cases, >> would risk doing so. >> > > I admit I haven't taken a survey, nor am I much of a forcing-club > player myself, but I'd go so far as to suggest that anyone who > doesn't at least consider passing 1C with the example hand doesn't > really understand matchpoints. I haven't tried to work out the IMP > odds, but I'd be surprised if they revealed passing to be totally crazy. > AG : IMP odds might be right (although they proably can play something) ; matchpoint odds are wrong : if partner holds a 5-card major, and enough to win his ccontract, 1C will score poorly. I admit being influenced by the fact that, in the case of a balanced hand, my 1C shows 18?+. (making 3C a fair contract). But anyway the length type is more probable than the NT type when you hold a 7-card suit. (notice that, tot the contrary, I've seen many times when opener passed the negative 1D response holding diamonds (especially at precision, where you respond 2H/S on a weak hand and 6 cards). > When you pass out 1C, you're just making a call that is undefined in > your system. Yet partner will understand it with 100% certainty. Who said it meant you had an agreement ? > > Of course. And I want to play 6S when partner has AQJ109876/AK/ > AKQ/-, which he might also. But matchpoints is a game of frequency, > and by far partner's most likely hand is a strong NT > AG : sorry, not when you hold a 7-card suit. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 15 17:21:13 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:21:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: References: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <5D3DE241-9B4D-4D63-85CB-A9D028A4F177@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Oct 14, 2009, at 9:39 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:45:34 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Oct 13, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:37:47 -0400, Thomas Dehn >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:04:32 -0400, >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Robert Frick: >>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Suppose I ask "Is your system such that it is sometimes >>>>>>> wise to >>>>> pass >>>>>>> the forcing no trump?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard Hills: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Yes" is the only truthful answer from 100% of players who use >>>>>> the >>>>>> forcing >>>>>> no trump convention. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then why play it as forcing? Are you planning on bidding even >>>>> when you >>>>> think a pass is wise? >>>> >>>> You play it as forcing because you think that playing it as forcing >>>> offers >>>> the best percentages. >>>> >>>> You then pass partner's forcing bid because you think that passing >>>> his >>>> forcing bid offers the best percentages. >>> >>> Are there particular hands where you always would pass because it >>> offers >>> the best percentages. And if so why can't you figure them out in >>> advance? >>> And if so, why aren't you obligated to warn the opponents? >> >> Because you have no obligation to have or make partnership agreements >> that define a "systemic" bid with every possible hand you could >> hold. Because the game would be unplayable if you did. > > Do you really want to allow players to have as big of holes as they > want? > I would love to come to your club and play the prototype system. In > that > system 1NT shows 4-3-3-3 distribution with 16 HCP. Opening 1 of a > minor > and rebidding 1NT shows flat distribution and 13 HCP. That leaves no > systemic bid for balanced hands with 14 or 15 HCP. And it goes on like > that -- a weak two shows a six-card suit with exactly 8 HCP. With a > six-card suit and only 3 HCP, you pass. With 15 HCP, you open your > suit at > the 1 level. With a five-card major, you open 1 of the major with > 15 HCP > and pass with 8 HCP. > > Ando of course if you happen to get a hand that there is no system bid > for, you choose the bid that seems like it will work best. So it is > functionally equivalent to Standard American. > > Speaking of players who will come to your club, do you allow them to > describe a 2C response to a forcing no trump as showing 3 clubs, just > because they never realized they had no bid for the 4-5-2-2 > distribution? > Opponents who know 2/1 can protect themselves. But opponents who do > not > know that system have no protection. > > Or what about my pair who agreed to play 5-card majors, the 1 Di > opening > showing 4 Di, and the 1 Cl opening showing 3 clubs. Eventually they > ran > into a 4-4-3-2 distibution, they did not alert the 1 Cl opening as > possibly being short (as required at our club), and RHO was damaged. I don't make rules about holes. I do expect my players to be as reasonable, courteous, honest and forthcoming as their level of experience dictates. If they've got blatant and unreasonable holes but wouldn't have understood or known better, I gently educate them. If they "would love to come to my clubs and play" what they know full well to be Secretary-Bird nonsense, intending to be unreasonable, discourteous or disingenuous and claim the right to do so based on having literally violated no specific law, they will get a lesson about L74A and L91A on their way out the door. >>> Or does it depend on facial expressions or hesitations or whatever >>> from >>> the opponents and/or partner? >> >> It may very well depend on facial expressions or hesitations or >> whatever from the opponents (see L73D), but not from partner (see >> L73A-B). I suspect Bob knows this. > > I know that players never use facial expressions from partner? That they may not, not that they do not. But this is totally irrelevant to the issue. 99.99+% of the time that a player uses his partner's facial expressions to influence his call, he makes a systemically defined call, not a systemically undefined one. It's just as illegal either way. >>>> You have xx,xx,xx,xxxxxxx. Partner opens 1C, strong club, RHO >>>> passes. >>>> What do you do? Respond 1D and let opener torture you >>>> with whatever comes next? >>>> Myself, I pass. >>> >>> Then why not admit that is your system? >> >> Because it isn't. It is understood (i.e. "knowledge and experience >> of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] that it is >> not illegal to pass a bid which has been agreed as forcing, and that >> therefore a player may take a flyer and choose to do so when he >> believes it is the best chance to maximize his expected result. To >> call that "your system" would falsely suggest a disclosable agreement >> (explicit or implicit) as to the nature of the hands on which one >> would be expected to pass. But passing a bid spontaneously and >> unexpectedly, based on a judgment of the moment, does not mean that >> it wasn't forcing by agreement. I suspect that more than half of a >> bidding panel would pass a strong, artificial, forcing 1C opening >> with Thomas's example hand (at least at matchpoints), and nobody >> would think they had violated the stated conditions. > > So why call it forcing? Why not? The alternative, as Bob would have it, is to define "forcing" in such a way that there's no such bid, and drop the word from the lexicon entirely. As I wrote in reply to Bob earlier, the term "forcing bid", in our lexicon, means a bid "made in the expectation that partner will bid (if needed to insure that you get another call) regardless of his holding". It certainly doesn't mean a bid, which, by virtue of having been agreed within the partnership to be "forcing", may not by law be passed. > Richard makes the excellent point that in his system, he is much less > likely to pass 1C than other forcing 1C systems. Am I as opponent not > entitled to know that? To return to the original example, the > probability > of passing the "forcing" 1NT probably depends on whether they are > playing > Drury. I have to look on the card for that. I assume I can also ask > about > that. But what if I have never heard of Drury, or there might be other > relevant conventions. I can't just be allowed to know the > probability that > the forcing bid might be passed? Even Richard, who "ha[s] not passed partner's strong 1C in the past twenty-odd years", and has no intention of ever doing so, nevertheless "makes the excellent point that in his system, he is much *less likely* to pass 1C..." [emphasis mine]. He understands that because it remains legal, it cannot be guaranteed impossible. The opponents, of course, are entitled to know as much as you do. They may, as others have pointed out, ask whether your partner has ever passed this bid, or any forcing bid, or whether you have ever discussed circumstances under which you might do so. But they need not be proactively alerted to the fact that there's a difference between a bid which may not be passed by agreement (we call these bids "forcing", and they're everywhere) and a bid which may not be passed by law (which, as anyone who knows enough about the rules to sit down at a bridge table fully understands, does not exist). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 15 17:33:05 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:33:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 14, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Short: The law apparently does not require players to explain the > inferences from bids that could be made later in the auction. > > The Situation You Know: When a Precision player opens 1Di, we know > that > they can't explain their bid as "opening hand with no other opening > bid." > That might be the complete verbal agreement, and maybe they never > played > before so their is no implicit agreement based on experience. But > L20F1 is > clear that the opps are entitled to "relevant inferences from the > choice > of action". In other words, the opponents don't have to piece > together the > opponents' entire system to figure out what 1Di means -- the people > playing the system do that for them. > > For "Forcing": It seems that the analogous thing does NOT happen for > describing a bid as forcing. Consider your ordinary Precision 1C, and > Richard's 1C which seems about the same. I, as poor opponent, want > to know > if that bid is forcing. "Yes." Does that mean it can't be passed? > "No, of > course it can be passed, have you never played bridge before?" Now > I would > like to know the probability of it being passed. > > It turns out the the probability is much less in Richard's system, > because > they show very strong bids with the 1H rebid, not with a jump. Am I > entitled to this information? As I read the law, I am not. It is an > implication from a bid that could be made later in the auction. > > Am I missing something? It is not Bob who is missing something; it is the minute-writers at the WBF (I've lost track of just which body does that). They have missed either L40A1(b) altogether, or else the difference between "manner" and "extent". In my (and Edgar Kaplan's) universe, there can be no question that Bob is entitled to the information he seeks; his scenario illustrates why it is absurd to hold otherwise. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Oct 15 17:47:34 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:47:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AD72E2A.6090902@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> <4AD71DD1.1020204@yahoo.co.uk> <4AD72E2A.6090902@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AD74416.2010507@yahoo.co.uk> [Nige1] Such problems would miraculously disappear if the law mandated that "if you don't know, you must make your best guess" and if the law explicitly suggested that "unless there are written explanations, partner should be asked to leave the table before you speculate on the meaning of his call". [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : this would be a step towards fairness, but it wouldn't cover the case above, where you know perfectly well what your system is, and you know perfectly well that partner intended to mean something else. Actually, showing doubt (e.g. by sending him away) would help him realize his mistake, which is illegal. [Nige2] The main example case where I disagree with Richard -- which occurs with surprising frequency -- is when you are fairly sure that partner has made a mistake but knowledge of your *previous agreement* makes it easier for you than for your opponents to diagnose what partner really holds. If the law were changed to suggest that partner should leave the table before you speculated on the meaning of his bid, what preoblems does Alain envisage? It is already the case that alerts, announcements, and explanations are quite legal. Typically, however, they give rise to unauthorised information. The law would still forbid partner from taking advantage of that unauthorised information, to wake up or whatever. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 15 18:44:34 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:44:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? In-Reply-To: <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:52 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> Todd M. Zimnoch, April 2005, abnormal contribution: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> If opponents can demand to know my knowledge of my partner as >>> I've experienced as a kibitzer, opponent, or TD, my opponents >>> may as well be allowed to ask the people at the next table or >>> the TD himself. Those people might have more such knowledge >>> than myself anyways. >> >> There is no contradiction, or abnormality. >> >> Full disclosure is a hypothetical situation. It is written in the >> passive voice. Opponent are entitled to know "everything", >> regardless of >> whether the partner knows it or not. Once you have crossed that >> hurdle, >> there are no "strange" situations any more. > > AG : I read TFLB in a slightly different manner. > > Opponents are allowed to know 1) everything about our system and 2) > everything about my partner's style and habits when playing with me. > > Are they allowed to know partner's style of habits in other > partnerships > ? (as I know them from e.g. kibitzing) > This information is often irrelevant, and could be misleading. > e.g. X. tends to bid NT in fornt of some of his partners ; does it > mean > anything about how he will act facing me ? > > Therefore, it would be better if the answer was to the negative. You are entitled to full disclosure of your opponents' partnership understandings. Those are the understandings between the partners ("Partner: The player with whom one plays as a side against the other two players at the table" [Definitions]) who are your opponents ("Opponent: A player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed" [ibid]. There is no entitlement to any kind of disclosure of any other partnership's understandings besides your opponents', nor to any information about either member of your opponents' partnership not known to the other. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 15 19:02:22 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:02:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 In-Reply-To: <4AD7367B.4090500@ulb.ac.be> References: <14298935.1255462667540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <5D3DE241-9B4D-4D63-85CB-A9D028A4F177@starpower.net> <4AD5F4D5.605@ulb.ac.be> <6E07291D-736A-4FB4-871A-F0BB04CCFE67@starpower.net> <4AD7367B.4090500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <597D465E-A31F-4381-BC1A-7D9AC3240D2F@starpower.net> On Oct 15, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> On Oct 14, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> >>>> Because it isn't. It is understood (i.e. "knowledge and experience >>>> of matters generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] that it is >>>> not illegal to pass a bid which has been agreed as forcing, and >>>> that >>>> therefore a player may take a flyer and choose to do so when he >>>> believes it is the best chance to maximize his expected result. To >>>> call that "your system" would falsely suggest a disclosable >>>> agreement >>>> (explicit or implicit) as to the nature of the hands on which one >>>> would be expected to pass. But passing a bid spontaneously and >>>> unexpectedly, based on a judgment of the moment, does not mean that >>>> it wasn't forcing by agreement. I suspect that more than half of a >>>> bidding panel would pass a strong, artificial, forcing 1C opening >>>> with Thomas's example hand (at least at matchpoints) >>> >>> AG : I differ on that one. >>> >>> I'm not ready to pretend that more than half of the players using >>> strong >>> clubs, who didn't discuss the possibility of passing in extreme >>> cases, >>> would risk doing so. >> >> I admit I haven't taken a survey, nor am I much of a forcing-club >> player myself, but I'd go so far as to suggest that anyone who >> doesn't at least consider passing 1C with the example hand doesn't >> really understand matchpoints. I haven't tried to work out the IMP >> odds, but I'd be surprised if they revealed passing to be totally >> crazy. > > AG : IMP odds might be right (although they proably can play > something) > ; matchpoint odds are wrong : if partner holds a 5-card major, and > enough to win his ccontract, 1C will score poorly. > I admit being influenced by the fact that, in the case of a balanced > hand, my 1C shows 18?+. (making 3C a fair contract). But anyway the > length type is more probable than the NT type when you hold a 7- > card suit. > > (notice that, tot the contrary, I've seen many times when opener > passed > the negative 1D response holding diamonds (especially at precision, > where you respond 2H/S on a weak hand and 6 cards). > >> When you pass out 1C, you're just making a call that is undefined in >> your system. > Yet partner will understand it with 100% certainty. > Who said it meant you had an agreement ? > >> Of course. And I want to play 6S when partner has AQJ109876/AK/ >> AKQ/-, which he might also. But matchpoints is a game of frequency, >> and by far partner's most likely hand is a strong NT > > AG : sorry, not when you hold a 7-card suit. OK, so Alain and I disagree on the merits of passing a forcing 1C opening with xx/xx/xx/xxxxxxx. Alain is a better mathematician than I am, and is probably right. I'm not even a big-club player, and may be talking through my hat. But it doesn't matter to the discussion, because when I'm at the table with cards in my hand, it's only my judgment that counts. If I describe partner's bid as forcing and then pass it because I judge that it is the winning action at this particular table under these particular circumstances, it is either an infraction or it isn't, regardless of whether my judgment that it would the winning action was right or wrong, clear-cut or ridiculous. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 15 22:52:34 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:52:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AD71DD1.1020204@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4AD71DD1.1020204@yahoo.co.uk> <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2549859.1255639954055.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Hills] > Old answer. The Fabulous Law Book uses the Aristotelian Principle of > the Excluded Middle. There is no such animal as a semi-implicit > partnership understanding. > > [Nigel] > Again I disagree with Richard . IMO The law should be > clarified to mandate that even undiscussed and tentative understandings > should be disclosed. For example you guess what partner probably means > because - > - you have discussed and rejected alternative meanings *in other similar > contexts*. > - you both have that agreement with a *third party* or > - you both have recently read the *same book* or read the *same article* > or attended the *same lecture* or > - the agreement is a *popular local agreement* in your group or > - From your hand you deduce that partner has made a mistake or psyched; > but partner rarely psyches; and you think it more likely that he has > forgotten your current agreement and *reverted to your previous agreement* > . > > These inferences are *uncertain* but IMO they should should still be > disclosed. Some may be *unilateral* in the sense that partner cannot be > at all confident that you know what he probably intends. I don't think that kind of approach solves anything. You provide such information to opponents, some fancy hypothesis why a certain bid partner made should have a certain meaning. Turns out partner holds something else, opponents are damaged by the MI. That's because partner bid according to your partnership agreements, and his own judgement, rather than according to your fancy hypothesis. You will have a nice little MI ruling against you, and deservedly so. Opponents and the TD might think that you deliberately misinformed them, because the MI you gave was based upon something made up on the fly. Thomas Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 15 23:25:56 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:25:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 94 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "The Fabulous Law Book uses the Aristotelian Principle of the Excluded Middle. There is no such animal as a semi-correct statement." Eric Landau semi-correctly stated: >...the fact that there's a difference between a bid which may not >be passed by agreement (we call these bids "forcing", and they're >everywhere) and a bid which may not be passed by law (which, as >anyone who knows enough about the rules to sit down at a bridge >table fully understands, does not exist). Law 16B1(a): "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a **call** or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Definitions: "Pass - a **call** specifying that a player does not, at that turn, elect to bid, double or redouble." 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 Oct 16 00:03:45 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:03:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AD74416.2010507@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Sigmund Freud (1856-1939): "Yes, America is gigantic, but a gigantic mistake." Nigel Guthrie: >The main example case where I disagree with Richard -- which occurs with >surprising frequency -- is when you are fairly sure that partner has >made a mistake ..... Richard Hills: In which case we are not in disagreement. If one's fairly sureness is based on the surprising frequency of partner's past mistakes, then there is a failure to reach the Law 40C1 criterion "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents", thus creating an implicit partnership understanding. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 16 00:27:04 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:27:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >With Hilda's Law 92D permission, Wayne appeals the TD decision. >As AC, how would you rule? Since the TD's ruling is predicated on the TD's interpretation of the Law 40A1(a) word "mutual", as AC I rule that I am incompetent. Law 93B3: '...the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law..." 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 Oct 16 01:56:04 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:56:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The party will be come as you are [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer, "We Will All Go Together When We Go": We will all char together when we char. And let there be no moaning of the bar. Just sing out a Te Deum when you see that I.C.B.M. And the party will be come as you are. Formerly appended to the WBF CoP were some "Guidelines for Rulings". Guideline #5 stated: "An ACBL appeals committee passed comments that fit well with WBF thinking in relation to what they called 'hot seat' auctions. It is desirable to exhibit extra tolerance in relation to a 'hesitation' when a player encounters an unprecedented situation in the auction." [snip] "An aspect that has special significance, when a player meets a quite unusual bidding situation and takes time to deliberate, is how clearly it is apparent to partner what is the nature of his problem." [snip] "the first consideration is to judge whether it can truly be said that one action is suggested over another, or whether the message from the 'hesitation' is unclear. A sympathetic treatment of the law here should be an aim and it is an area in which regulating authorities may find it helpful to give guidance." You are playing against expert opponents. (West has played internationally in the Australian Open Team; East has played internationally in the Australian Seniors Team.) They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. Imps Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1H 2S Pass Pass 3H Pass 6H Pass(1) Pass Pass (1) Charring hot seat hesitation You, South, hold: QT8632 A72 J92 J What opening lead (if any) do you choose? What opening lead (if any) do you think illegal? 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 Oct 16 02:57:48 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:57:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Theology [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church of England." Grattan Endicott, 30th June 2005, pontifex maximus: +=+ Any prior minute still applicable remains valid until varied. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sven Pran, 30th June 2005, agnostic: Are they not considered "varied" by a new law book that does not replicate the essence of such minutes????? Incredible (Just my $0,02 opinion)! How on earth are we to know the valid rules if we cannot trust the current law book as (possibly) modified by WBFLC minutes issued after the release of that law book? Shall we have to investigate WBFLC minutes all the way back to the "birth" of WBFLC and check whether there ever has been some "applicable minute" that has not subsequently been "varied" by a more recent minute? Is a complete registry of all such minutes readily available? Sorry Grattan, I am lost for words. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 16 03:21:55 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:21:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) References: Message-ID: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) >> > It is not Bob who is missing something; it is the minute-writers at > the WBF (I've lost track of just which body does that). They have > missed either L40A1(b) altogether, or else the difference between > "manner" and "extent". > +=+ I do not recall a minute touching upon Law 40A1(b). As for the difference between 'manner' and 'extent', the word in the said Law is "manner" and its dictionary meaning is "the way in which something is done; style". The manner could be, for example, detailed or cursory, essential or comprehensive, copious or scant. Law 40A1(b) is concerned with provision of information generally to opponents before starting to play against them. However, it would seem that Bob's subject is the extent of enquiry during the auction and play, quite a different kettle of fish. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 16 03:31:45 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:31:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The party will be come as you are [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:56:04 -0400, wrote: > > Tom Lehrer, "We Will All Go Together When We Go": > > We will all char together when we char. > And let there be no moaning of the bar. > Just sing out a Te Deum when you see that I.C.B.M. > And the party will be come as you are. > > Formerly appended to the WBF CoP were some > "Guidelines for Rulings". Guideline #5 stated: > > "An ACBL appeals committee passed comments that fit > well with WBF thinking in relation to what they > called 'hot seat' auctions. It is desirable to > exhibit extra tolerance in relation to a 'hesitation' > when a player encounters an unprecedented situation > in the auction." > > [snip] > > "An aspect that has special significance, when a > player meets a quite unusual bidding situation and > takes time to deliberate, is how clearly it is > apparent to partner what is the nature of his > problem." > > [snip] > > "the first consideration is to judge whether it can > truly be said that one action is suggested over > another, or whether the message from the 'hesitation' > is unclear. A sympathetic treatment of the law here > should be an aim and it is an area in which > regulating authorities may find it helpful to give > guidance." > > You are playing against expert opponents. (West has > played internationally in the Australian Open Team; > East has played internationally in the Australian > Seniors Team.) > > They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1H 2S > Pass Pass 3H Pass > 6H Pass(1) Pass Pass > > (1) Charring hot seat hesitation > > You, South, hold: > > QT8632 > A72 > J92 > J > > What opening lead (if any) do you choose? > What opening lead (if any) do you think illegal? A 10-second hesitation would just be normal following a jump, so I assume it was more than that. Without the hesitation, a spade lead looks like the best way to try to beat the contract by opening lead -- hope partner has a singleton spade and declarer a doubleton. Or partner has a void. The only obvious reason for the hesitation is that partner was thinking of sacrificing. That suggests 3 spades in partner's hand, no defense, and no way to set the contract anyway. Now the spade lead is less attractive because partner can't ruff and it might allow declarer a finesse if he has a void. But with 3 spades partner might have found a bid. So I lead a spade. Partner could have been trying to work out Lightner double considerations, so a spade is still safe. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 16 05:34:21 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:34:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:21:55 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:33 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) > > >>> >> It is not Bob who is missing something; it is the minute-writers at >> the WBF (I've lost track of just which body does that). They have >> missed either L40A1(b) altogether, or else the difference between >> "manner" and "extent". >> > +=+ I do not recall a minute touching upon Law 40A1(b). As for > the difference between 'manner' and 'extent', the word in the said > Law is "manner" and its dictionary meaning is "the way in which > something is done; style". The manner could be, for example, > detailed or cursory, essential or comprehensive, copious or > scant. > Law 40A1(b) is concerned with provision of information > generally to opponents before starting to play against them. > However, it would seem that Bob's subject is the extent of > enquiry during the auction and play, quite a different kettle > of fish. I see another difference. To me, Law 40 asks just for agreements. Law 20 seems to require the players to use all of these agreements to form a picture of what partner has. This includes inferences from bids not made. So "opening hand, no other opening bid" might be a sufficient description of the Precision 1 Di for purposes of Law 40. But a request "What does that mean" during the auction triggers Law 20 which then requires a lot more. Or at least should. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 16 10:01:48 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:01:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AD8286C.2020109@skynet.be> There is a small difference between theory and practice, Alain. In theory, they are only entitled to the things that partners "know". But in practice, it is impossible, for the director, to establish what the partner knows. It is too easy for him to feign ignorance. So in practice, the director will rule that some things that the partner "could have known" are also entitled to the opponents. Even if the partner -really- does not know it. Example: I am prone to open a Spanish heart. Everyone knows this, and my partner "could" know it. So even when he does not know it, it is still something the opponents are entitled to. IMO. Herman. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> Todd M. Zimnoch, April 2005, abnormal contribution: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> If opponents can demand to know my knowledge of my partner as >>> I've experienced as a kibitzer, opponent, or TD, my opponents >>> may as well be allowed to ask the people at the next table or >>> the TD himself. Those people might have more such knowledge >>> than myself anyways. >>> >>> >> There is no contradiction, or abnormality. >> >> Full disclosure is a hypothetical situation. It is written in the >> passive voice. Opponent are entitled to know "everything", regardless of >> whether the partner knows it or not. Once you have crossed that hurdle, >> there are no "strange" situations any more. >> >> > AG : I read TFLB in a slightly different manner. > > Opponents are allowed to know 1) everything about our system and 2) > everything about my partner's style and habits when playing with me. > > Are they allowed to know partner's style of habits in other partnerships > ? (as I know them from e.g. kibitzing) > This information is often irrelevant, and could be misleading. > e.g. X. tends to bid NT in fornt of some of his partners ; does it mean > anything about how he will act facing me ? > > Therefore, it would be better if the answer was to the negative. > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 16 10:04:26 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:04:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AD8290A.9020506@skynet.be> All very true, Alain, but: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Grattan a ?crit : >> (1) An internationally famous bridge professional gives >> a lecture at your club in which he recommends a way of >> treating a particular problem; or >> (2) Mr Clever Clogs at your club pulls off a coup that >> is the talk of the club. >> In neither case do you discuss the situation with your >> partner but, bless us, here we are in just that situation a >> couple of weeks later.... you decide to rely on your mutual >> knowledge and , lo and behold, it turns out that so did partner. >> > AG : This is a different situation. > I prefer handling case (a). > If said international was convincing enough, it could be that it created > in our partnership a more or less conscious agreement to do so. > > But that's not the case I tackled. > I spoke of partner's agreements with other players, in the case when > they don't influence ours. > Specifying them wouldn't be useful to opponents, it could even mislead > them into believing they're relevant, for why would you have mentioned > them ? > >> You said nothing to opponents.... >> Concealed partnership understanding? >> See Law 40A1. >> You know what partner does in other partnerships but, >> neglectfully, have never discussed it. You rely on it. If you >> turn out to be right to do so? >> > If you do rely on it, then there is an agreement. > > What I meant is that, in most cases, it doens't work so. Your partner's > understandings in other parnerships are unknown to you, or don't impress > you, and in that case, opponents need not be informaed. > > The rule is easy : > > a) if it is part of your understandings, in any form, tell it to the > opponents. > If "you rely on it", then you've an implicit understanding. > In such a case, I'd say 'It could well be ... but no guarantees' > > b) if not, don't, and it irrelevant whether other well-known > partnerships do use it. > > Just consider the abstract case when you know that partner uses > agreement X with John and agreement Y with Jack. Neither of those > players do impress you by their knowledge of bidding theory. > You don't know which one partner used here. > You're compelled to : > - make some bid at your turn, and this will take into account your guess > (possibly totally random) as to whether it's X or Y. > - explain them the agreement is either X or Y, but you don't know which. > > You're not compelled to cite your sources (gneral rule : you aren't > compelled to say whether it's in your notes, or you read it in a > magazine, or somebody taught it to you). > You're not compelled to say he uses X with John and Y with Jack. > Suppose both you and he have -independently- chosen X. How are you going to explain to director that this is merely good luck and not some meta-agreement or a common assessment that John is the better source than Jack? Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 16 11:04:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:04:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> <4AD8290A.9020506@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Suppose both you and he have -independently- chosen X. How are you going to explain to director that this is merely good luck and not some meta-agreement or a common assessment that John is the better source than Jack? +=+ It is a Law 85A situation. The Director is likely to accept the evidence of his own eyes. +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 16 12:23:17 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:23:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:21:55 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > > >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "Of that there is no manner of doubt - >> No probable, possible shadow of doubt - >> No possible doubt whatever." >> 'The Gondoliers' >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Landau" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:33 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) >> >> >> >>> It is not Bob who is missing something; it is the minute-writers at >>> the WBF (I've lost track of just which body does that). They have >>> missed either L40A1(b) altogether, or else the difference between >>> "manner" and "extent". >>> >>> >> +=+ I do not recall a minute touching upon Law 40A1(b). As for >> the difference between 'manner' and 'extent', the word in the said >> Law is "manner" and its dictionary meaning is "the way in which >> something is done; style". The manner could be, for example, >> detailed or cursory, essential or comprehensive, copious or >> scant. >> Law 40A1(b) is concerned with provision of information >> generally to opponents before starting to play against them. >> However, it would seem that Bob's subject is the extent of >> enquiry during the auction and play, quite a different kettle >> of fish. >> > > I see another difference. To me, Law 40 asks just for agreements. Law 20 > seems to require the players to use all of these agreements to form a > picture of what partner has. This includes inferences from bids not made. > So "opening hand, no other opening bid" might be a sufficient description > of the Precision 1 Di for purposes of Law 40. But a request "What does > that mean" during the auction triggers Law 20 which then requires a lot > more. Or at least should. > AG : I don't think the explanation 'opening hand, no other possible opening' would be sufficient in either case. First, it could serve to hide illegal agreements. See the thread about the Brabo system, whereother openings cover everything but a 5-card minor, which appears to be illegal according to some (1D shows either 5C or 5D). Second, in a well-planned system, this could be the description of any opening bid. Your common Precision 1C is 'opening hand, denies any other systemic opening' if all other openings are described as restricted to the 11-15 range or one of its subsets. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 16 12:37:19 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:37:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> <4AD8290A.9020506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4AD84CDF.6090602@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 9:04 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > Suppose both you and he have -independently- chosen X. > How are you going to explain to director that this is merely > good luck and not some meta-agreement or a common > assessment that John is the better source than Jack? > > +=+ It is a Law 85A situation. The Director is likely to > accept the evidence of his own eyes. +=+ > I would tell the AC that L85A, which speaks of certainties, shouldn't apply if it results in a random result : you get penalized with 50% probability. If I explained as 'either A or B', and then ostensibly picked a card at random from my hand to choose, I could get a PP, but surely the TD wouldn't consider our luck to be any kind of 'evidence'. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 16 16:08:19 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:08:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The party will be come as you are In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 15, 2009, at 7:56 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Tom Lehrer, "We Will All Go Together When We Go": > > We will all char together when we char. > And let there be no moaning of the bar. > Just sing out a Te Deum when you see that I.C.B.M. > And the party will be come as you are. > > Formerly appended to the WBF CoP were some > "Guidelines for Rulings". Guideline #5 stated: > > "An ACBL appeals committee passed comments that fit > well with WBF thinking in relation to what they > called 'hot seat' auctions. It is desirable to > exhibit extra tolerance in relation to a 'hesitation' > when a player encounters an unprecedented situation > in the auction." > > [snip] > > "An aspect that has special significance, when a > player meets a quite unusual bidding situation and > takes time to deliberate, is how clearly it is > apparent to partner what is the nature of his > problem." > > [snip] > > "the first consideration is to judge whether it can > truly be said that one action is suggested over > another, or whether the message from the 'hesitation' > is unclear. A sympathetic treatment of the law here > should be an aim and it is an area in which > regulating authorities may find it helpful to give > guidance." I'm not sure the example below really matches the guideline above. The usual "hot seat" auction is one in which the player might choose to bid in an actively competitive auction, where the final contract is yet to be determined. A situation in which the final contract is not in doubt and the only choice the hesitator can be facing is whether to pass or double is not quite the same thing. > You are playing against expert opponents. (West has > played internationally in the Australian Open Team; > East has played internationally in the Australian > Seniors Team.) > > They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1H 2S > Pass Pass 3H Pass > 6H Pass(1) Pass Pass > > (1) Charring hot seat hesitation > > You, South, hold: > > QT8632 > A72 > J92 > J > > What opening lead (if any) do you choose? > What opening lead (if any) do you think illegal? None, because there are too many possibilities. Partner had to be thinking of doubling, which would have been Lightner, asking me to lead the "right" minor. Why didn't he? IME, there are at least three possibilities: (a) He thought he was beating 6H, but decided it would be too risky to tout you off your normal lead. (b) He wasn't sure he really wanted his suit led, if you had the right holding to lead yours (or trumps). (c) He thinks a minor suit lead gives him the best chance to beat the contract, but doesn't really expect it to go down even if he gets it. (a) would suggest a spade, (b) would suggest nothing in particular, and (c) would suggest a minor. It wouldn't hurt to ascertain what South's considerations were with respect to leading a spade based on partner's failure to raise or run from 2S (e.g. might he have passed 2S with a void?). But I don't see the answer as potentially determinative. Of course, if N-S are a practiced partnership, South might have a much better idea than I do as to which of the above is more likely to cause partner to hesitate and then pass, but I would need some external evidence of that to consider it in ruling. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 16 16:10:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:10:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> <4AD8290A.9020506@skynet.be> <4AD84CDF.6090602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1D7724880C124B278BAA2F023EBA801E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > > Suppose both you and he have -independently- chosen X. > How are you going to explain to director that this is merely > good luck and not some meta-agreement or a common > assessment that John is the better source than Jack? > > +=+ It is a Law 85A situation. The Director is likely to > accept the evidence of his own eyes. +=+ > I would tell the AC that L85A, which speaks of certainties, shouldn't apply if it results in a random result : you get penalized with 50% probability. If I explained as 'either A or B', and then ostensibly picked a card at random from my hand to choose, I could get a PP, but surely the TD wouldn't consider our luck to be any kind of 'evidence'. +=+ 85A speaks of probabilities, not certainties. If you say you have no agreement but you and your partner take a line which is not obvious, combining successfully in the strategy, the Director is entitled to view your successful joint action as evidence of more than mere chance or guesswork. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 16 16:41:13 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:41:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The party will be come as you are In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601ca4e6e$b65085e0$22f191a0$@com> Imps Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1H 2S Pass Pass 3H Pass 6H Pass(1) Pass Pass (1) Charring hot seat hesitation You, South, hold: QT8632 A72 J92 J What opening lead (if any) do you choose? What opening lead (if any) do you think illegal? West, who passed over 2S and then raised 3H to 6H, has a serious penalty double of spades. North therefore has one spade or zero; he is not thinking of sacrificing in spades. He passed as dealer, so he does not have a seven-card or longer minor. He may be 1-0-6-6 and thinking of sacrificing in a minor, but far more likely is 0-1-6-6, having remembered just in time that a Lightner double with his spade void will not necessarily attract a spade lead. Since a slow pass demonstrably suggests a spade lead, I do not lead one (and what I do lead will not matter). David Burn London, England From jrmayne at mindspring.com Fri Oct 16 17:25:14 2009 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] The party will be come as you are Message-ID: <12599173.1255706714978.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Eric Landau >Sent: Oct 16, 2009 7:08 AM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [BLML] The party will be come as you are > >On Oct 15, 2009, at 7:56 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > [snip] > >> You are playing against expert opponents. (West has >> played internationally in the Australian Open Team; >> East has played internationally in the Australian >> Seniors Team.) >> >> They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. >> >> Imps >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- Pass 1H 2S >> Pass Pass 3H Pass >> 6H Pass(1) Pass Pass >> >> (1) Charring hot seat hesitation >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> QT8632 >> A72 >> J92 >> J >> >> What opening lead (if any) do you choose? >> What opening lead (if any) do you think illegal? > >None, because there are too many possibilities. Partner had to be >thinking of doubling, which would have been Lightner, asking me to >lead the "right" minor. Not necessarily. I have always believed this double should ask for a lead of the preemptor's suit, and when I put forward this novel treatment publicly, it turned out Jeff Rubens had already suggested this many years before. I believe that a double ought to mean, "Lead a spade." Why didn't he? IME, there are at least >three possibilities: (a) He thought he was beating 6H, but decided >it would be too risky to tout you off your normal lead. (b) He >wasn't sure he really wanted his suit led, if you had the right >holding to lead yours (or trumps). (c) He thinks a minor suit lead >gives him the best chance to beat the contract, but doesn't really >expect it to go down even if he gets it. (a) would suggest a spade, >(b) would suggest nothing in particular, and (c) would suggest a minor. > >It wouldn't hurt to ascertain what South's considerations were with >respect to leading a spade based on partner's failure to raise or run >from 2S (e.g. might he have passed 2S with a void?). But I don't see >the answer as potentially determinative. Isn't partner's hand pretty marked, here? West has many spades and a heart fragment; partner has at most one heart and at most one spade and therefore a whole passel of minor suit cards. What can partner possibly have that makes a minor suit lead stand out? He has too many to think they will cash. > >Of course, if N-S are a practiced partnership, South might have a >much better idea than I do as to which of the above is more likely to >cause partner to hesitate and then pass, but I would need some >external evidence of that to consider it in ruling. > If I'm in an unfamiliar partnership, or one that hasn't discussed this particular Lightner treatment, I think the spade lead is fine (and perhaps mandated, if a normal-speed pass would call for a spade lead.) If it's a partnership that plays the rather stronger (IMO) agreement that the double asks for a spade lead, it's tougher. If partner and declarer have stiff spades, I might muck up the entries by leading it. Still, I think there are peers who wouldn't lead a spade without the double. With the slow pass, a small heart to stop the minor suit ruffs may be called for, though I think a spade is superior on many more layouts and I wouldn't be issuing a PP against someone who led a spade with my preferred agreements after a slow pass. --JRM From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 16 17:39:24 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:39:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1D7724880C124B278BAA2F023EBA801E@Mildred> References: <4AD6D1EF.2040800@skynet.be> <4AD6D4CD.3080906@ulb.ac.be> <008701ca4d80$5592b0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><4AD6FBBC.5050206@ulb.ac.be> <4AD8290A.9020506@skynet.be> <4AD84CDF.6090602@ulb.ac.be> <1D7724880C124B278BAA2F023EBA801E@Mildred> Message-ID: <4AD893AC.2000007@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 11:37 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >> Suppose both you and he have -independently- chosen X. >> How are you going to explain to director that this is merely >> good luck and not some meta-agreement or a common >> assessment that John is the better source than Jack? >> >> +=+ It is a Law 85A situation. The Director is likely to >> accept the evidence of his own eyes. +=+ >> >> > I would tell the AC that L85A, which speaks of certainties, shouldn't > apply if it results in a random result : you get penalized with 50% > probability. > > If I explained as 'either A or B', and then ostensibly picked a card at > random from my hand to choose, I could get a PP, but surely the TD > wouldn't consider our luck to be any kind of 'evidence'. > > +=+ 85A speaks of probabilities, not certainties. > If you say you have no agreement but you and your partner > take a line which is not obvious, combining successfully in the > strategy, the Director is entitled to view your successful joint > action as evidence of more than mere chance or guesswork. > > So, what if you used some randomiser (pulling a card from your hand) ? Will he still pretend, that the fond that you guessed is evidence that you knew ? It would be so gross, if he were entitled to do it, that I'd be ready to campaign for a change of this law. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 16 17:48:55 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:48:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The party will be come as you are In-Reply-To: <12599173.1255706714978.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <12599173.1255706714978.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4AD895E7.1030603@ulb.ac.be> John R. Mayne a ?crit : > -----Original Message----- > >> From: Eric Landau >> Sent: Oct 16, 2009 7:08 AM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] The party will be come as you are >> >> On Oct 15, 2009, at 7:56 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> > [snip] > >>> You are playing against expert opponents. (West has >>> played internationally in the Australian Open Team; >>> East has played internationally in the Australian >>> Seniors Team.) >>> >>> They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. >>> >>> Imps >>> Dlr: North >>> Vul: East-West >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- Pass 1H 2S >>> Pass Pass 3H Pass >>> 6H Pass(1) Pass Pass >>> >>> (1) Charring hot seat hesitation >>> >>> You, South, hold: >>> >>> QT8632 >>> A72 >>> J92 >>> J >>> >>> What opening lead (if any) do you choose? >>> What opening lead (if any) do you think illegal? >>> > > If I'm in an unfamiliar partnership, or one that hasn't discussed this particular Lightner treatment, I think the spade lead is fine (and perhaps mandated, if a normal-speed pass would call for a spade lead.) > > If it's a partnership that plays the rather stronger (IMO) agreement that the double asks for a spade lead, it's tougher. > If partner and declarer have stiff spades, I might muck up the entries by leading it. > > Still, I think there are peers who wouldn't lead a spade without the double. With the slow pass, a small heart to stop the minor suit ruffs may be called for AG : I don't think special agreements about doubles are relevant here. If this is a plain lightner double, it calls for dummy's longest suit, which obviously are spades. Why partner didn't double at the end (little hope of an outside trick ? Fear of 7600 spades ?), isn't relevant, but within standard agreements a double indeed asks for a spades, whence a tempo suggests it. Best regards Alain From bobpark at consolidated.net Fri Oct 16 20:07:11 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:07:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The party will be come as you are In-Reply-To: <4AD895E7.1030603@ulb.ac.be> References: <12599173.1255706714978.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4AD895E7.1030603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AD8B64F.1080602@consolidated.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> [snip] >> >> >>>> You are playing against expert opponents. (West has >>>> played internationally in the Australian Open Team; >>>> East has played internationally in the Australian >>>> Seniors Team.) >>>> >>>> They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. >>>> >>>> Imps >>>> Dlr: North >>>> Vul: East-West >>>> >>>> The bidding has gone: >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> --- Pass 1H 2S >>>> Pass Pass 3H Pass >>>> 6H Pass(1) Pass Pass >>>> >>>> (1) Charring hot seat hesitation >>>> >>>> You, South, hold: >>>> >>>> QT8632 >>>> A72 >>>> J92 >>>> J >>>> >>>> What opening lead (if any) do you choose? >>>> What opening lead (if any) do you think illegal? >>>> >>>> >> If I'm in an unfamiliar partnership, or one that hasn't discussed this particular Lightner treatment, I think the spade lead is fine (and perhaps mandated, if a normal-speed pass would call for a spade lead.) >> >> If it's a partnership that plays the rather stronger (IMO) agreement that the double asks for a spade lead, it's tougher. >> If partner and declarer have stiff spades, I might muck up the entries by leading it. >> >> Still, I think there are peers who wouldn't lead a spade without the double. With the slow pass, a small heart to stop the minor suit ruffs may be called for >> > AG : I don't think special agreements about doubles are relevant here. > > If this is a plain lightner double, it calls for dummy's longest suit, > which obviously are spades. > Why partner didn't double at the end (little hope of an outside trick ? > Fear of 7600 spades ?), isn't relevant, but within standard agreements a > double indeed asks for a spades, whence a tempo suggests it. > > I recall thinking and then passing rather than make a penalty double on at least 3 occasions because it finally occurred to me that a Lightner lead from partner was exactly what I didn't want! --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091016/f2c62d25/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Oct 16 22:56:13 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:56:13 -0700 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be><000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com> <4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Herman De Wael" > There is no separate law governing Alcatraz coups. We just deal > with them exactly the same as if the infraction were accidental > (or > rather, we do the reverse). This is non-laws, sorry, but would some wordsmith out there tell me whether this use of the subjunctive "were" is legitimate? The Bridge World employs the same usage, and it grates on my nerves every time I see it. It feels wrong to me, and not just a violation of common usage ("was" if not contrary to fact, and the subjunctive "had been" if contrary to fact). It seems in accord with the common myth that the verb following an "if" must always be in the subjunctive mood. My instinct says that this use of the subjunctive "were" must be followed by an infinitive to be legitimate, e.g., . "... if the infraction were found to be accidental.." "Were" is present subjunctive, despite the same spelling as the indicative "were" of past tense. Putting an infinitive after it pulls it into a sort of present, or rather a non-time, which H.G. Fowler called "utopian time." Am I wrong? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 23:25:47 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:25:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar In-Reply-To: <67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com> <4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be> <67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: 2009/10/16 Marvin L French : > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> There is no separate law governing Alcatraz coups. We just deal >> with them exactly the same as if the infraction were accidental >> (or >> rather, we do the reverse). > > This is non-laws, sorry, but would some wordsmith out there tell > me whether this use of the subjunctive "were" is legitimate? The > Bridge World employs the same usage, and it grates on my nerves > every time I see it. It feels wrong to me, and not just a violation > of common usage ("was" if not contrary to fact, and the subjunctive > "had been" if contrary to fact). It ?seems in accord with the common > myth that the verb following an "if" must always be in the > subjunctive mood. > > My instinct says that this use of the subjunctive "were" must be > followed by an infinitive to be legitimate, e.g., . "... if the > infraction were found to be accidental.." "Were" is present > subjunctive, despite the same spelling as the indicative "were" of > past tense. Putting an infinitive after it pulls it into a sort of > present, or rather a non-time, which H.G. Fowler called "utopian > time." > > Am I wrong? Yes, you're wrong. The subjunctive form as used by Herman is entirely correct. As in the lyrics: "If I were a rich man..etc". To be in past subjunctive is I were, you were/he/she/it were, we/you/they were. > > 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 adam at irvine.com Fri Oct 16 23:30:01 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:30:01 -0700 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:25:47 +0200." Message-ID: <200910162119.OAA14480@mailhub.irvine.com> > > My instinct says that this use of the subjunctive "were" must be > > followed by an infinitive to be legitimate, e.g., . "... if the > > infraction were found to be accidental.." "Were" is present > > subjunctive, despite the same spelling as the indicative "were" of > > past tense. Putting an infinitive after it pulls it into a sort of > > present, or rather a non-time, which H.G. Fowler called "utopian > > time." > > > > Am I wrong? > > Yes, you're wrong. The subjunctive form as used by Herman is entirely correct. > As in the lyrics: "If I were a rich man..etc". To be in past > subjunctive is I were, you were/he/she/it were, we/you/they were. But is the next part---"daidle, daidle, deedle, deedle, diddle, daidle, daidle, dum", or whatever he sang---grammatically correct? We really need to know! -- Adam From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 23:33:24 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:33:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar In-Reply-To: <200910162119.OAA14480@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200910162119.OAA14480@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: 2009/10/16 Adam Beneschan : > >> > My instinct says that this use of the subjunctive "were" must be >> > followed by an infinitive to be legitimate, e.g., . "... if the >> > infraction were found to be accidental.." "Were" is present >> > subjunctive, despite the same spelling as the indicative "were" of >> > past tense. Putting an infinitive after it pulls it into a sort of >> > present, or rather a non-time, which H.G. Fowler called "utopian >> > time." >> > >> > Am I wrong? >> >> Yes, you're wrong. The subjunctive form as used by Herman is entirely correct. >> As in the lyrics: "If I were a rich man..etc". To be in past >> subjunctive is I were, you were/he/she/it were, we/you/they were. > > But is the next part---"daidle, daidle, deedle, deedle, diddle, > daidle, daidle, dum", or whatever he sang---grammatically correct? ?We > really need to know! Well, that's beyond me. You'll really have to find a true Englishman like Grattan or David Burn for that one. :)) > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?-- Adam > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 17 00:57:57 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:57:57 -0700 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Harald Skj?ran" > 2009/10/16 Marvin L French : >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >>> There is no separate law governing Alcatraz coups. We just deal >>> with them exactly the same as if the infraction were accidental >>> (or >>> rather, we do the reverse). >> >> This is non-laws, sorry, but would some wordsmith out there tell >> me whether this use of the subjunctive "were" is legitimate? The >> Bridge World employs the same usage, and it grates on my nerves >> every time I see it. It feels wrong to me, and not just a >> violation >> of common usage ("was" if not contrary to fact, and the >> subjunctive >> "had been" if contrary to fact). It seems in accord with the >> common >> myth that the verb following an "if" must always be in the >> subjunctive mood. >> >> My instinct says that this use of the subjunctive "were" must be >> followed by an infinitive to be legitimate, e.g., . "... if the >> infraction were found to be accidental.." "Were" is present >> subjunctive, despite the same spelling as the indicative "were" >> of >> past tense. Putting an infinitive after it pulls it into a sort >> of >> present, or rather a non-time, which H.G. Fowler called "utopian >> time." >> >> Am I wrong? > > Yes, you're wrong. The subjunctive form as used by Herman is > entirely correct. > As in the lyrics: "If I were a rich man..etc". To be in past > subjunctive is I were, you were/he/she/it were, we/you/they were. >> Oh yes, I forgot, lyrics are authoritative. However, "If I were a rich man" is actually correct *present* subjunctive, condition contrary to fact. That doesn't apply to my example, and by the way, "were" is not past subjunctive, it is past indicative and present subjunctive. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 17 05:01:06 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:01:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: LHO opens 1NT, partner overcalls 2Di. That's Capelletti, but you can't remember what it means. (You are playing two hands with this partner and hoped it wouldn't come up.) When it is your turn to bid, you look at the opponent's convention card. Fortunately, for you, they are playing Capelletti. However, they have not filled in what the bids mean for Capelletti, which is required in ACBL-land. Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di overcall of 1NT would mean? From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 17 07:27:34 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:27:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > LHO opens 1NT, partner overcalls 2Di. That's Capelletti, but you can't remember > what it means. (You are playing two hands with this partner and hoped it wouldn't > come up.) When it is your turn to bid, you look at the opponent's convention card. > Fortunately, for you, they are playing Capelletti. However, they have not filled in > what the bids mean for Capelletti, which is required in ACBL-land. > > Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di overcall of 1NT > would mean? No, it is not "about relevant alternative calls available that were not made" (Law 20F) Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 17 08:44:58 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:44:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:27:34 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> LHO opens 1NT, partner overcalls 2Di. That's Capelletti, but you can't > remember >> what it means. (You are playing two hands with this partner and hoped it > wouldn't >> come up.) When it is your turn to bid, you look at the opponent's > convention card. >> Fortunately, for you, they are playing Capelletti. However, they have >> not > filled in >> what the bids mean for Capelletti, which is required in ACBL-land. >> >> Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di overcall > of 1NT >> would mean? > > No, it is not "about relevant alternative calls available that were not > made" (Law 20F) The only definition I can think of for relevant is that it would influence my choice of actions. So it is definitely relevant information for me. That's why I want it. The call could have been made, but not on this auction. So L20F doesn't apply, especially the revised version. You are taking L20 as having primacy over L40. That's what I am comfortable with. But then you have to face: You open 2NT, LHO overcalls 2Di, then when his bid is pointed out to be insufficient, blurts that he thought you bid 1NT and then passes. You as declarer would like to know the meaning of 2Di overcall of your 1NT. The information is likely to be relevant to how you play the hand. But the call could not have been made on this auction. Same questions -- are you allowed to look at their card? If they haven't filled that in, can you call the director? Can you just ask what the 2Di bid means. From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 17 09:12:57 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:12:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> Message-ID: <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:27:34 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > >> LHO opens 1NT, partner overcalls 2Di. That's Capelletti, but you > >> can't > > remember > >> what it means. (You are playing two hands with this partner and hoped > >> it > > wouldn't > >> come up.) When it is your turn to bid, you look at the opponent's > > convention card. > >> Fortunately, for you, they are playing Capelletti. However, they have > >> not > > filled in > >> what the bids mean for Capelletti, which is required in ACBL-land. > >> > >> Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di > >> overcall > > of 1NT > >> would mean? > > > > No, it is not "about relevant alternative calls available that were > > not made" (Law 20F) > > The only definition I can think of for relevant is that it would influence my choice of > actions. So it is definitely relevant information for me. > That's why I want it. The call could have been made, but not on this auction. So > L20F doesn't apply, especially the revised version. > > You are taking L20 as having primacy over L40. That's what I am comfortable with. > But then you have to face: > > You open 2NT, LHO overcalls 2Di, then when his bid is pointed out to be > insufficient, blurts that he thought you bid 1NT and then passes. You as declarer > would like to know the meaning of 2Di overcall of your 1NT. The information is > likely to be relevant to how you play the hand. But the call could not have been > made on this auction. > > Same questions -- are you allowed to look at their card? If they haven't filled that > in, can you call the director? Can you just ask what the 2Di bid means. I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "relevant". A relevant call is a call that could have been made (by an opponent) in the current auction although it wasn't. You are entitled to explanation of any call that opponents have made and also of any call that opponents could have made but did not make in the current auction. This includes the explanation of an insufficient bid made by an opponent because it has actually been made (although illegally), but it does not include the explanation of your partner's call because this call could not under any circumstance have been made with the same meaning by an opponent in the current auction. Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 17 10:19:11 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:19:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:12:57 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:27:34 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> >> LHO opens 1NT, partner overcalls 2Di. That's Capelletti, but you >> >> can't >> > remember >> >> what it means. (You are playing two hands with this partner and hoped >> >> it >> > wouldn't >> >> come up.) When it is your turn to bid, you look at the opponent's >> > convention card. >> >> Fortunately, for you, they are playing Capelletti. However, they have >> >> not >> > filled in >> >> what the bids mean for Capelletti, which is required in ACBL-land. >> >> >> >> Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di >> >> overcall >> > of 1NT >> >> would mean? >> > >> > No, it is not "about relevant alternative calls available that were >> > not made" (Law 20F) >> >> The only definition I can think of for relevant is that it would >> influence > my choice of >> actions. So it is definitely relevant information for me. >> That's why I want it. The call could have been made, but not on this > auction. So >> L20F doesn't apply, especially the revised version. >> >> You are taking L20 as having primacy over L40. That's what I am > comfortable with. >> But then you have to face: >> >> You open 2NT, LHO overcalls 2Di, then when his bid is pointed out to be >> insufficient, blurts that he thought you bid 1NT and then passes. You as > declarer >> would like to know the meaning of 2Di overcall of your 1NT. The > information is >> likely to be relevant to how you play the hand. But the call could not > have been >> made on this auction. >> >> Same questions -- are you allowed to look at their card? If they haven't > filled that >> in, can you call the director? Can you just ask what the 2Di bid means. > > I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "relevant". A relevant > call is a call that could have been made (by an opponent) in the current > auction although it wasn't. > > You are entitled to explanation of any call that opponents have made and > also of any call that opponents could have made but did not make in the > current auction. > > This includes the explanation of an insufficient bid made by an opponent > because it has actually been made (although illegally), The problem is, the actual bid was a 2Di overcall of 2NT. That has no meaning. Hopefully. YOu want to know about the meaning of a 2Di overcall of 1NT. That bid didn't occur and couldn't have occurred. > but it does not > include the explanation of your partner's call because this call could > not > under any circumstance have been made with the same meaning by an > opponent > in the current auction. > > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 17 12:08:01 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:08:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> Message-ID: <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ......... > The problem is, the actual bid was a 2Di overcall of 2NT. That has no meaning. > Hopefully. > > YOu want to know about the meaning of a 2Di overcall of 1NT. That bid didn't > occur and couldn't have occurred. > Oh, come on - please! 2Di over 2NT is of course an illegal bid, but it was made and sure had an intended meaning (unless it was a mistake for a legal call in which case Law 25A applies and the 2D bid is considered never made). Opponents are entitled to know the intended meaning of an insufficient bid, LHO even before he decides whether or not to accept it as legal (Law 27). Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 17 12:54:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:54:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <200910162119.OAA14480@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] English Grammar >>>> > Well, that's beyond me. You'll really have to find a true > Englishman like Grattan or David Burn for that one. :)) >> +=+ It depends on your definition of 'true Englishman". My grandmother, on my father's side, was a Morgan from Sir Fynwy. +=+ From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sat Oct 17 13:07:12 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:07:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <200910162119.OAA14480@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001b01ca4f1a$0454f0e0$2401a8c0@p41600> ...and mine was a Morgon from Sir Beau Jolais ********************** I married Miss Right, just didn't know that her first name was "always". ********************** > +=+ It depends on your definition of 'true Englishman". My > grandmother, on my father's side, was a Morgan from Sir > Fynwy. +=+ -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 3835 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 17 13:12:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:12:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> Message-ID: <2AA84CC4DFDB472FB40B34765FDBB704@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > > Opponents are entitled to know the intended meaning > of an insufficient bid, LHO even before he decides > whether or not to accept it as legal (Law 27). > > Sven > +=+ I had not realized the law said this. I must look it up again. But how does the partner know what the I-bidder was thinking when he made the insufficient bid? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bobpark at consolidated.net Sat Oct 17 13:53:58 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:53:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> Message-ID: <4AD9B056.1070703@consolidated.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:27:34 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> >>> LHO opens 1NT, partner overcalls 2Di. That's Capelletti, but you can't >>> >> remember >> >>> what it means. (You are playing two hands with this partner and hoped it >>> >> wouldn't >> >>> come up.) When it is your turn to bid, you look at the opponent's >>> >> convention card. >> >>> Fortunately, for you, they are playing Capelletti. However, they have >>> not >>> >> filled in >> >>> what the bids mean for Capelletti, which is required in ACBL-land. >>> >>> Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di overcall >>> >> of 1NT >> >>> would mean? >>> >> No, it is not "about relevant alternative calls available that were not >> made" (Law 20F) >> > > The only definition I can think of for relevant is that it would influence > my choice of actions. So it is definitely relevant information for me. > That's why I want it. The call could have been made, but not on this > auction. So L20F doesn't apply, especially the revised version. > > You are taking L20 as having primacy over L40. That's what I am > comfortable with. But then you have to face: > > You open 2NT, LHO overcalls 2Di, then when his bid is pointed out to be > insufficient, blurts that he thought you bid 1NT and then passes. You as > declarer would like to know the meaning of 2Di overcall of your 1NT. The > information is likely to be relevant to how you play the hand. But the > call could not have been made on this auction. > > Same questions -- are you allowed to look at their card? If they haven't > filled that in, can you call the director? Can you just ask what the 2Di > bid means. > > Hmmmm....So can you (or should the director, if asked) require them to complete (that section) of their convention card? And to do so before the auction continues? Interesting. I seem to be meeting a lot of opponents with empty or incomplete convention cards lately. --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091017/a070d127/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 17 14:41:51 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:41:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <2AA84CC4DFDB472FB40B34765FDBB704@Mildred> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <2AA84CC4DFDB472FB40B34765FDBB704@Mildred> Message-ID: <000701ca4f27$33485e20$99d91a60$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > > > > Opponents are entitled to know the intended meaning > > of an insufficient bid, LHO even before he decides > > whether or not to accept it as legal (Law 27). > > > > Sven > > > +=+ I had not realized the law said this. I must look > it up again. But how does the partner know what the > I-bidder was thinking when he made the insufficient > bid? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If not then the offender certainly cannot be eligible for application of Law 27B1 (a) or (b). In most cases I believe that the circumstances will enable him to deduce the intended meaning. And the Director always has the possibility to send partner away from the table while the offender explains his bid, a procedure that I in fact never during my 30 years of directing have experienced being used, but still as far as I can judge is available to the Director? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 17 14:53:31 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:53:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <4AD9B056.1070703@consolidated.net> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <4AD9B056.1070703@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <000801ca4f28$d4b7ec70$7e27c550$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Park ............... >Hmmmm....So can you No, not any player >or should the director, if asked require them to complete (that section) of their convention card? Yes, at his discretion. And then not only that section but all deficiencies that make the card unacceptible according to regulation >And to do so before the auction continues? No, before they start on the next round (alternatively at the Director's discretion already before the next board) >I seem to be meeting a lot of opponents with empty or incomplete convention cards lately. We all do. But be aware that while CC usually is required by regulation it is not in itself required by law. Sven From bobpark at consolidated.net Sat Oct 17 16:10:04 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:10:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <000801ca4f28$d4b7ec70$7e27c550$@no> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <4AD9B056.1070703@consolidated.net> <000801ca4f28$d4b7ec70$7e27c550$@no> Message-ID: <4AD9D03C.2080505@consolidated.net> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Park > ............... > >> Hmmmm....So can you >> > > No, not any player > > >> or should the director, if asked require them to complete (that section) of >> > their convention card? > > Yes, at his discretion. And then not only that section but all deficiencies > that make the card unacceptible according to regulation > > >> And to do so before the auction continues? >> > > No, before they start on the next round (alternatively at the Director's > discretion already before the next board) > > >> I seem to be meeting a lot of opponents with empty or incomplete convention >> > cards lately. > > We all do. But be aware that while CC usually is required by regulation it > is not in itself required by law. > > Sven > > _ So...it seems like the 2 cases Robert Frick cites are ones where the non-offending side is injured by the opponents' failure to follow regulations. Had they had a competed CC, 'our' side could have referred to it for guidance in the auction. And the law just waves its hands. --rep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091017/86c765ce/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Oct 17 16:20:27 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:20:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <091E610D-9F1F-4286-BB44-6B9C651030D5@starpower.net> On Oct 16, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > LHO opens 1NT, partner overcalls 2Di. That's Capelletti, but you can't > remember what it means. (You are playing two hands with this > partner and > hoped it wouldn't come up.) When it is your turn to bid, you look > at the > opponent's convention card. Fortunately, for you, they are playing > Capelletti. However, they have not filled in what the bids mean for > Capelletti, which is required in ACBL-land. > > Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di > overcall > of 1NT would mean? Technical legality aside, you are clearly walking a fine ethical line here. I'm not at all sure that it was ethical to consult their CC in the first place. The function of the CC is to serve as an aid to disclosure, but here you have no interest whatsoever in their methods, but rather in your own. You are attempting to use their CC as a memory aid, clearly violating the spirit, if perhaps not the letter, of L40C3(a). You might be able to get this past a Secretary- Bird director, but you should know better than to try. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 17 16:34:30 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:34:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:08:01 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ......... >> The problem is, the actual bid was a 2Di overcall of 2NT. That has no > meaning. >> Hopefully. >> >> YOu want to know about the meaning of a 2Di overcall of 1NT. That bid > didn't >> occur and couldn't have occurred. >> > > Oh, come on - please! > > 2Di over 2NT is of course an illegal bid, but it was made and sure had an > intended meaning (unless it was a mistake for a legal call in which case > Law > 25A applies and the 2D bid is considered never made). > > Opponents are entitled to know the intended meaning of an insufficient > bid, > LHO even before he decides whether or not to accept it as legal (Law 27). > I think you are still using the old version of L20F1, good only in ACBL-land. The new version, passed at Beijing and discussed and left unchanged at Sao Paulo. 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An ?alternative? call is not the same call with another meaning ? for example, if the reply to an opponent is that ?5D shows diamonds preference?, any reply to a further question ?what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) You could not get a clearer refutation of the claim that opponents are entitled to the intended meaning of a bid -- if 5 Di was meant as a Blackwood response but 4NT was not Blackwood according to the system, the opponents are not entitled to know the intended meaning of a bid. Can they look at the convention card to see how this is filled out? If so, can they complain to the director if this part is not filled out or filled out incorrectly? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 17 16:55:57 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:55:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <091E610D-9F1F-4286-BB44-6B9C651030D5@starpower.net> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <091E610D-9F1F-4286-BB44-6B9C651030D5@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:20:27 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 16, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> LHO opens 1NT, partner overcalls 2Di. That's Capelletti, but you can't >> remember what it means. (You are playing two hands with this >> partner and >> hoped it wouldn't come up.) When it is your turn to bid, you look >> at the >> opponent's convention card. Fortunately, for you, they are playing >> Capelletti. However, they have not filled in what the bids mean for >> Capelletti, which is required in ACBL-land. >> >> Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di >> overcall >> of 1NT would mean? > > Technical legality aside, you are clearly walking a fine ethical line > here. I'm not at all sure that it was ethical to consult their CC in > the first place. The function of the CC is to serve as an aid to > disclosure, but here you have no interest whatsoever in their > methods, but rather in your own. You are attempting to use their CC > as a memory aid, clearly violating the spirit, if perhaps not the > letter, of L40C3(a). You might be able to get this past a Secretary- > Bird director, but you should know better than to try. Isn't everything you said obvious? Except for agreeing that this unsavory tactic is technically legal. (And a player just needs to get it past a committee. And I agree with you that something can be unethical even though it is legal. But I think Richard takes the opposite position.) > > > 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 roger-eymard at orange.fr Sat Oct 17 18:20:50 2009 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:20:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no><000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <2AA84CC4DFDB472FB40B34765FDBB704@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 11:08 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > > >> >> Opponents are entitled to know the intended meaning >> of an insufficient bid, LHO even before he decides >> whether or not to accept it as legal (Law 27). >> >> Sven >> > +=+ I had not realized the law said this. I must look > it up again. But how does the partner know what the > I-bidder was thinking when he made the insufficient > bid? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Hello I can't see how the explanation of an IB (either by IBer's partner or by IBer herself if her partner is taken away from the table) could legally be something else than "No agreement" (Law 40B6(a)). When applying Law 27B1(b), the TD can know the intended meaning of the IB, but wouldn't be making it known by the NOS giving them extraneous information? Regards Roger From bobpark at consolidated.net Sat Oct 17 18:25:12 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:25:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <091E610D-9F1F-4286-BB44-6B9C651030D5@starpower.net> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <091E610D-9F1F-4286-BB44-6B9C651030D5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4AD9EFE8.3000608@consolidated.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 16, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > >> LHO opens 1NT, partner overcalls 2Di. That's Capelletti, but you can't >> remember what it means. (You are playing two hands with this >> partner and >> hoped it wouldn't come up.) When it is your turn to bid, you look >> at the >> opponent's convention card. Fortunately, for you, they are playing >> Capelletti. However, they have not filled in what the bids mean for >> Capelletti, which is required in ACBL-land. >> >> Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di >> overcall >> of 1NT would mean? >> > > Technical legality aside, you are clearly walking a fine ethical line > here. I'm not at all sure that it was ethical to consult their CC in > the first place. The function of the CC is to serve as an aid to > disclosure, but here you have no interest whatsoever in their > methods, but rather in your own. You are attempting to use their CC > as a memory aid, clearly violating the spirit, if perhaps not the > letter, of L40C3(a). You might be able to get this past a Secretary- > Bird director, but you should know better than to try. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > Your horse seems to be getting a bit high here, Eric. If it's legal to look at the opponents' CC at your turn to bid, it's legal to do so...no ifs, ands or buts. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Did not a famed Supreme Court justice say much the same thing...when explaining that using the law to minimize your taxes is not evading taxes? rep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091017/c6974a02/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 17 19:01:01 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:01:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> Message-ID: <001501ca4f4b$67d5d950$37818bf0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:08:01 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > ......... > >> The problem is, the actual bid was a 2Di overcall of 2NT. That has no > > meaning. > >> Hopefully. > >> > >> YOu want to know about the meaning of a 2Di overcall of 1NT. That bid > > didn't > >> occur and couldn't have occurred. > >> > > > > Oh, come on - please! > > > > 2Di over 2NT is of course an illegal bid, but it was made and sure had > > an intended meaning (unless it was a mistake for a legal call in which > > case Law 25A applies and the 2D bid is considered never made). > > > > Opponents are entitled to know the intended meaning of an insufficient > > bid, LHO even before he decides whether or not to accept it as legal > > (Law 27). > > > > I think you are still using the old version of L20F1, good only in ACBL-land. The > new version, passed at Beijing and discussed and left unchanged at Sao Paulo. > I shall be lenient and not take that an intended insult. Please rest assured that when commenting on current laws I use the current laws and not any previous version. > 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may > request and receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. At this time he > is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available > alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences > from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An ?alternative? call is not the > same call with another meaning ? for example, if the reply to an opponent is that > ?5D shows diamonds preference?, any reply to a further question ?what would it > mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of > Law 20F1.) And please explain why a 2D (insufficient) bid over 2NT is not a call "actually made"? We are not talking about literally the same call with a different meaning in a different situation, we are talking about an illegal call made deliberately and therefore most necessarily must have had a meaning. This meaning is authorized to opponents (but not to partner!) and it is important in the Director's procedure when applying law 27B. > You could not get a clearer refutation of the claim that opponents are entitled to > the intended meaning of a bid -- if 5 Di was meant as a Blackwood response but > 4NT was not Blackwood according to the system, the opponents are not entitled to > know the intended meaning of a bid. > > Can they look at the convention card to see how this is filled out? If so, can they > complain to the director if this part is not filled out or filled out incorrectly? The laws do not specify any reason for limiting why a player may look at opponents' convention card, but it should be very clear that inspecting it for purposes other than to understand opponents' auction is not acceptable. Your persistent attempts to have such purpose declared legal makes me suspecting that you lack the fundamental knowledge of what constitutes fair play in the game of bridge. I certainly hope that is a misunderstanding on my part? Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 17 19:12:43 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:12:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <001501ca4f4b$67d5d950$37818bf0$@no> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <001501ca4f4b$67d5d950$37818bf0$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:01:01 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:08:01 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> > ......... >> >> The problem is, the actual bid was a 2Di overcall of 2NT. That has no >> > meaning. >> >> Hopefully. >> >> >> >> YOu want to know about the meaning of a 2Di overcall of 1NT. That bid >> > didn't >> >> occur and couldn't have occurred. >> >> >> > >> > Oh, come on - please! >> > >> > 2Di over 2NT is of course an illegal bid, but it was made and sure had >> > an intended meaning (unless it was a mistake for a legal call in which >> > case Law 25A applies and the 2D bid is considered never made). >> > >> > Opponents are entitled to know the intended meaning of an insufficient >> > bid, LHO even before he decides whether or not to accept it as legal >> > (Law 27). >> > >> >> I think you are still using the old version of L20F1, good only in >> ACBL-land. The >> new version, passed at Beijing and discussed and left unchanged at Sao >> Paulo. >> > > I shall be lenient and not take that an intended insult. Please rest > assured that when commenting on current laws I use the current laws and > not any previous version. > > >> 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player >> may >> request and receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. At >> this time he >> is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant >> available >> alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to >> inferences >> from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An ?alternative? call >> is not the >> same call with another meaning ? for example, if the reply to an >> opponent is that >> ?5D shows diamonds preference?, any reply to a further question ?what >> would it >> mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a >> requirement of >> Law 20F1.) > > > And please explain why a 2D (insufficient) bid over 2NT is not a call > "actually made"? We are not talking about literally the same call with a > different meaning in a different situation, we are talking about an > illegal call made deliberately and therefore most necessarily must have > had a meaning. The problem is, the laws seem very clear that you are not entitled to the intended meaning. You are entitled only to systemic meaning. And there is no system meaning for 2Di over 2NT. Hopefully. > This meaning is authorized to opponents (but not to partner!) and it is > important in the Director's procedure when applying law 27B. I can do without it, so I am not sure it is that important. The players either have the right to ask about bids that were not made and could not be made, or they don't. If they don't, then that will impair their ability to decide whether or not the bid is insufficient, of course. It has already been commented upon that this violates Max Bevin's instructions for how to deal with insufficient bids. But I am pretty sure that advice was given before Beijing. > >> You could not get a clearer refutation of the claim that opponents are >> entitled to >> the intended meaning of a bid -- if 5 Di was meant as a Blackwood >> response but >> 4NT was not Blackwood according to the system, the opponents are not >> entitled to >> know the intended meaning of a bid. >> >> Can they look at the convention card to see how this is filled out? If >> so, can they >> complain to the director if this part is not filled out or filled out >> incorrectly? > > The laws do not specify any reason for limiting why a player may look at > opponents' convention card, but it should be very clear that inspecting > it for purposes other than to understand opponents' auction is not > acceptable. Right. I was thinking that if a behavior is reprehensible, it should also be illegal. Then it is even worse if the player can call the director to get the relevant second of the card completed or is protected afterwards from mistakes on the card. > > Your persistent attempts to have such purpose declared legal makes me > suspecting that you lack the fundamental knowledge of what constitutes > fair play in the game of bridge. I certainly hope that is a > misunderstanding on my part? It seems to be clear to everyone that it is legal to look at the opponent's convention card to try to determine one's own system. I will suggest a change in the laws for 2010 to make it illegal. Ironically, my main interest is if the player is protected if the card is not filled out on the relevant point (or is filled out incorrectly). From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 17 19:23:25 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:23:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <200910162119.OAA14480@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <303BD6152D0F4A0CBD2A1ACF610E8FB6@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" >> Well, that's beyond me. You'll really have to find a true >> Englishman like Grattan or David Burn for that one. :)) >>> > +=+ It depends on your definition of 'true Englishman". My > grandmother, on my father's side, was a Morgan from Sir > Fynwy. +=+ Perhaps selection of the name Grattan was inspired by the great Irish politician Henry Grattan, who was instrumental in winning Home Rule for Ireland in 1780. >From History of England, Vol 3 by James Franck Bright: The independent Irish Parliament was indeed full of able speakers; men who carried the art of rhetoric and of clothing little thought in magnificent language to the highest pitch. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 17 20:21:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:21:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <200910162119.OAA14480@mailhub.irvine.com> <303BD6152D0F4A0CBD2A1ACF610E8FB6@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <645619BF1E8E4ADAA6BEFFA0566082F1@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] English Grammar > > > Perhaps selection of the name Grattan was inspired by the great > Irish politician Henry Grattan, who was instrumental in winning Home > Rule for Ireland in 1780. > >>From History of England, Vol 3 by James Franck Bright: > > The independent Irish Parliament was indeed full of able speakers; > men who carried the art of rhetoric and of clothing little thought > in magnificent language to the highest pitch. > +=+ Touche', and well spotted. My uncle Grattan was named after the Irish politician, admired greatly by my Grandmother. ~ G ~ +=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Oct 17 21:35:01 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:35:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <001501ca4f4b$67d5d950$37818bf0$@no> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <001501ca4f4b$67d5d950$37818bf0$@no> Message-ID: <33C6DACA1F8444409BA13D1347430D49@erdos> "Sven Pran" svenpran at online.no writes: (insufficient 2D overcall over 2NT) > And please explain why a 2D (insufficient) bid over 2NT is not a call > "actually made"? >We are not talking about literally the same call with a different meaning in a >different > situation, we are talking about an illegal call made deliberately and > therefore most > necessarily must have had a meaning. This meaning is authorized to opponents > (but not to partner!) and it is important in the Director's procedure when > applying law 27B. In fact, the opponents need to know the meaning of 2D in order to apply the penalty under L26A. If 2D showed hearts, then declarer can require or forbid a heart lead when the bidder's partner is on lead. Thus, at the very least, the TD needs to ask the meaning of 2D when the opponents become the declaring side. I would say the opponents are entitled to know the penalty during the auction, as they can adjust the auction to take advantage of a penalty (putting the offender's partner on lead). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 17 22:17:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:17:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be><000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no><000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no><000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> Message-ID: <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights I think you are still using the old version of L20F1, good only in ACBL-land. The new version, passed at Beijing and discussed and left unchanged at Sao Paulo. > 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An ?alternative? call is not the same call with another meaning ? for example, if the reply to an opponent is that ?5D shows diamonds preference?, any reply to a further question ?what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) > +=+ Law 20F1 was not altered in Beijing. The WBFLC merely took steps to ensure that it is correctly understood. The WBF CTD has not changed one iota the manner in which he applies this law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 17 22:34:30 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:34:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be><091E610D-9F1F-4286-BB44-6B9C651030D5@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights When it is your turn to bid, you look at the opponent's convention card. Fortunately, for you, they are playing Capelletti. However, they have not filled in what the bids mean for Capelletti, which is required in ACBL-land. > Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di overcall of 1NT would mean? > +=+ You are entitled to ask for "an explanation of the opponents' prior auction" and that is defined as "an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing". They have had no opportunity in the auction to use the Capelletti convention. So where does the idea of asking about it under Law 20F1 enter the equation? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 17 23:43:46 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:43:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <091E610D-9F1F-4286-BB44-6B9C651030D5@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:34:30 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:55 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > > > When it is your turn to bid, you look at the opponent's convention > card. Fortunately, for you, they are playing Capelletti. However, > they have not filled in what the bids mean for Capelletti, which is > required in ACBL-land. >> > Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di > overcall of 1NT would mean? >> > +=+ You are entitled to ask for "an explanation of the opponents' > prior auction" and that is defined as "an explanation only of calls > actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and > any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice > of action among the foregoing". > They have had no opportunity in the auction to use the > Capelletti convention. So where does the idea of asking about > it under Law 20F1 enter the equation? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Right, L20F1 does not allow me to ask about an insufficient bid or the 5 Di bid mentioned in Beijing (intended as a Blackwood response though having a different meaning according to the system). The question is if L40 (L40A1(b)? L40B6?) gives players the right to ask about any system understanding. Some people, as near as I can tell, think that, though I can't find an example right now. (I see L40B6(a) as directing that explanation be limited by L20F1.) So that was the purpose of that question. Thanks. The next question is, what happens if you want to know information that you are not entitled to (by L20F1), and the opponents card is incomplete or incorrect/misleading? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 17 23:51:53 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:51:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:17:29 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:34 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > > > I think you are still using the old version of L20F1, good only in > ACBL-land. The new version, passed at Beijing and discussed and left > unchanged at Sao Paulo. >> > 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player > may request and receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. > At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually > made, > relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership > understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the > foregoing. (An ?alternative? call is not the same call with another > meaning ? for example, if the reply to an opponent is that ?5D shows > diamonds preference?, any reply to a further question ?what would it > mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a > requirement of Law 20F1.) >> > +=+ Law 20F1 was not altered in Beijing. The WBFLC merely > took steps to ensure that it is correctly understood. The WBF > CTD has not changed one iota the manner in which he applies > this law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Well, it certainly looks like a rewrite. If it was to clarify an ambiguity, you could have done that. When asked prior to Beijing about the 5 Di question, it seemed by my rough opinion that the majority of blmlers thought that the opps were entitled to know what meaning 5Di would have as a Blackwood response. And then there is the issue of ruling out questions about insufficient bids. As near as I can tell, everyone thought that you could prior to Beijing. Including Max Bavin. Yet everyone (except maybe Sven, we are arguing about it now) agrees that the Beijing "clarification" rules out asking about insufficient bids. (Example: 1S 1C, the opponents want to know what a 1 Cl opening means.) Is this lack of entitlement to know about insufficient bids new to the 2007 Laws? From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 18 00:43:52 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:43:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> Message-ID: <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ................. > And then there is the issue of ruling out questions about insufficient > bids. As near as I can tell, everyone thought that you could prior to > Beijing. Including Max Bavin. Yet everyone (except maybe Sven, we are > arguing about it now) agrees that the Beijing "clarification" rules out > asking about insufficient bids. > > (Example: 1S 1C, the opponents want to know what a 1 Cl opening means.) Is > this lack of entitlement to know about insufficient bids new to the 2007 > Laws? As far as i have noticed you have completely failed to show why an insufficient bid is not "a call actually made". Until you show such cause this discussion is absolutely useless. Your example of a 5D bid as a Blackwood response when the agreement is that it is preference for diamonds is completely irrelevant because then it is not "the call actually made or a call that could have been made in the situation". Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 18 01:21:53 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:21:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:43:52 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ................. >> And then there is the issue of ruling out questions about insufficient >> bids. As near as I can tell, everyone thought that you could prior to >> Beijing. Including Max Bavin. Yet everyone (except maybe Sven, we are >> arguing about it now) agrees that the Beijing "clarification" rules out >> asking about insufficient bids. >> >> (Example: 1S 1C, the opponents want to know what a 1 Cl opening means.) >> Is >> this lack of entitlement to know about insufficient bids new to the 2007 >> Laws? > > As far as i have noticed you have completely failed to show why an > insufficient bid is not "a call actually made". Of course it is a call actually made. > > Until you show such cause this discussion is absolutely useless. darn. Right, the opponents have a complete right to know the meaning of a 2Di overcall of 2NT. But so what? At least in ACBL land, there had better be no meaning assigned to this call. What would be the point of a partship agreement about the meaning of an insufficient bid? In the example I was giving, the player wanted to know the meaning of a 2Di overcall of 1NT. That's a bid that was not made and could not have been made. Bob > > Your example of a 5D bid as a Blackwood response when the agreement is > that it is preference for diamonds is completely irrelevant because > then it is not "the call actually made or a call that could have been > made in the situation". > > Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 18 09:56:01 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:56:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> Message-ID: <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............. > > As far as i have noticed you have completely failed to show why an > > insufficient bid is not "a call actually made". > > Of course it is a call actually made. Good, now we have at least come that far. > > > > Until you show such cause this discussion is absolutely useless. > > darn. > > Right, the opponents have a complete right to know the meaning of a 2Di overcall > of 2NT. But so what? At least in ACBL land, there had better be no meaning > assigned to this call. What would be the point of a partship agreement about the > meaning of an insufficient bid? > > In the example I was giving, the player wanted to know the meaning of a 2Di > overcall of 1NT. That's a bid that was not made and could not have been made. And what makes you so sure that the bid was not a 2D bid over 1NT? Yes, I know that 2NT was the actual previous call, but what do you think the 2D bidder was bidding over? I am pretty confident it was a 2D bid over 1NT, and that is the call opponents are entitled to get explained the meaning of. Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 18 12:12:23 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:12:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> Message-ID: <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights >> >> In the example I was giving, the player wanted to know the meaning of a > 2Di >> overcall of 1NT. That's a bid that was not made and could not have been > made. > > And what makes you so sure that the bid was not a 2D bid over 1NT? > > Yes, I know that 2NT was the actual previous call, but what do you think > the > 2D bidder was bidding over? > > I am pretty confident it was a 2D bid over 1NT, and that is the call > opponents are entitled to get explained the meaning of. > > Sven > +=+ I really must clear my brain about this. I am being asked to accept that an opponent has bid 2D over my 2NT bid and, since the opponents have no partnership understanding about such bid, I am entitled to ask instead, during the auction, about the meaning of a bid that did not occur and which was not available to the opponent? Is this the suggestion? The case made seems to be that the information should be on the System Card, but it is not and I did not enquire about the omission before commencing play against these opponents. So I want to raise that issue in the middle of the hand about a call that has not occurred. Is that the proposition? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 18 12:37:28 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:37:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> Message-ID: <000601ca4fde$fd652a00$f82f7e00$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > +=+ I really must clear my brain about this. I am being asked to > accept that an opponent has bid 2D over my 2NT bid and, since > the opponents have no partnership understanding about such bid, > I am entitled to ask instead, during the auction, about the meaning > of a bid that did not occur and which was not available to the > opponent? Is this the suggestion? > The case made seems to be that the information should be > on the System Card, but it is not and I did not enquire about the > omission before commencing play against these opponents. So > I want to raise that issue in the middle of the hand about a call > that has not occurred. > Is that the proposition? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The original question was about a partnership using Capuletti defense and one of the players in that partnership had forgotten the meaning of his partner's 2D bid over opponents' 1NT opening bid. Fortunately he remembered that opponents also used Capuletti so he happily inspected opponents' convention card to find out the meaning of 2D. However, opponents' convention card did not specify that bid specifically, it only stated "Capuletti over 1NT". The question now is two-fold: 1: Is it OK for this player to inspect opponents' convention card for the apparent purpose of refreshing his own memory on the meaning of 2D in the Capuletti defense, i.e. his own partner's call? 2: May the player at this time request a complete explanation of opponents' 2D bid in such situations as it is not specified on the CC? Most of us frown over this idea although it literally can be taken as legal. Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 18 12:57:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:57:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > > > Yes, I know that 2NT was the actual previous call, but > > what do you think the 2D bidder was bidding over? > > I am pretty confident it was a 2D bid over 1NT, and > that is the call opponents are entitled to get explained > the meaning of. > > Sven > +=+ Is it impossible he failed to realize the NT bid had been made and he was calling over some prior call? Or was it possible he thought he was opening the bidding? Or could his wayward brain have told him he was responding to some action or intervention by his partner? How much do we *know* about the circumstances underlying this insufficient bid? And are we in danger of clarifying for partner what my action will now be based upon? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 18 13:35:37 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:35:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:56:01 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............. >> > As far as i have noticed you have completely failed to show why an >> > insufficient bid is not "a call actually made". >> >> Of course it is a call actually made. > > Good, now we have at least come that far. > >> > >> > Until you show such cause this discussion is absolutely useless. >> >> darn. >> >> Right, the opponents have a complete right to know the meaning of a 2Di > overcall >> of 2NT. But so what? At least in ACBL land, there had better be no >> meaning >> assigned to this call. What would be the point of a partship agreement > about the >> meaning of an insufficient bid? >> >> In the example I was giving, the player wanted to know the meaning of a > 2Di >> overcall of 1NT. That's a bid that was not made and could not have been > made. > > And what makes you so sure that the bid was not a 2D bid over 1NT? > > Yes, I know that 2NT was the actual previous call, but what do you think > the > 2D bidder was bidding over? > > I am pretty confident it was a 2D bid over 1NT, and that is the call > opponents are entitled to get explained the meaning of. > > Sven There are two problems with this position. First, you are saying essentially that even though a 2Di overcall of 1NT did not occur and could not occur, it was what occurred in the player's head. Therefore it in a sense was his bid and can be asked about. The problem is that the 5Di Blackwood response, though it could not actually occur in the player's system because 4NT was not Blackwood, did occur in the player's head. So according to your logic, that is the bid the opponents are entitled to get explained the meaning of. Or I would like to hear a version of L20F1 that distinguishes the two. The second problem is that you probably have not accomplished what you want to accomplish. The normal understanding is that if my LHO makes an insufficient bid, and I think there are two possible meanings of the bid, I may ask about both. So on the auction 1H 1D I can ask the meaning of a 1 Di opening and I can ask the meaning of a 1 Di overcall (say of 1 Cl). Your formulation does not allow that. So you have probably taken a unique position on this. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 18 13:59:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:59:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no><5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <000601ca4fde$fd652a00$f82f7e00$@no> Message-ID: <5E90CCD3A4BE4ED3AFC7FF089BF0713C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > The question now is two-fold: > > 1: Is it OK for this player to inspect opponents' convention card for the > apparent purpose of refreshing his own memory on the meaning of 2D in the > Capuletti defense, i.e. his own partner's call? > > 2: May the player at this time request a complete explanation of > opponents' > 2D bid in such situations as it is not specified on the CC? > > Most of us frown over this idea although it literally can be taken as > legal. > > Regards Sven > +=+ In the first place it appears to me that this is an effort to use opponents' System Card as an aid to memory within the meaning of Law 40C3(a). Perhaps the Director should check that regulation under Law 40B2(a) does not permit use of opponents' System Card for this purpose. It would be unusual in my experience if it does. I do not believe the player can enquire during the auction and play about a call that has not occurred and which was not available in the auction to the player (who had no opportunity to make it). In the circumstances cited this fits the call of 2D over 1NT exactly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 18 14:10:40 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:10:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> Message-ID: <000b01ca4fec$0287f0a0$0797d1e0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > +=+ Is it impossible he failed to realize the NT bid had > been made and he was calling over some prior call? Or > was it possible he thought he was opening the bidding? > Or could his wayward brain have told him he was > responding to some action or intervention by his partner? > How much do we *know* about the circumstances > underlying this insufficient bid? And are we in danger of > clarifying for partner what my action will now be based > upon? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ All these objections are of course relevant, but before entering into another discussion along these lines please consider: How is the TD to handle the situation with respect of laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) unless the insufficient bid can be explained trustworthy? And how shall Law 26 be applied if the offending side becomes defenders and the (retracted) insufficient bid cannot be identified as showing particular suit(s)? Is the offender's LHO not entitled to know the alternative consequences of his possible choice under law 27A before making this choice? Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Oct 18 15:07:10 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:07:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <000b01ca4fec$0287f0a0$0797d1e0$@no> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <000b01ca4fec$0287f0a0$0797d1e0$@no> Message-ID: <4ADB12FE.5060304@yahoo.co.uk> I understand Grattan's interpretation but an obvious consequence is that the offenders will usually have a better idea about what's happening than the victims. Of course that information is unauthorised information to offenders; but if victims must not be informed of the likely meaning of the illegal bid, then it is hard for them to know when offenders use tha information to advantage. Amusingly in a current BBO discussion on cheating, posters believe that almost all players, including top experts regularly use UI -- many deliberately. Some, including a director, don't regard this practice as cheating. Hence, if the director follows Grattan's interpretation, it is important that he discovers the likely import of the illegal bid, as soon as he is called. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 18 15:15:37 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:15:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <5E90CCD3A4BE4ED3AFC7FF089BF0713C@Mildred> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <000601ca4fde$fd652a00$f82f7e00$@no> <5E90CCD3A4BE4ED3AFC7FF089BF0713C@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:59:41 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:37 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > > >> The question now is two-fold: >> >> 1: Is it OK for this player to inspect opponents' convention card for >> the >> apparent purpose of refreshing his own memory on the meaning of 2D in >> the >> Capuletti defense, i.e. his own partner's call? >> >> 2: May the player at this time request a complete explanation of >> opponents' >> 2D bid in such situations as it is not specified on the CC? >> >> Most of us frown over this idea although it literally can be taken as >> legal. >> >> Regards Sven >> > +=+ In the first place it appears to me that this is an effort to use > opponents' > System Card as an aid to memory within the meaning of Law 40C3(a). Looking at the opponent's convention card is an illegal memory aid? I don't think you want to go there. Contrary to whatever L40C3(a) might say, there are a lot of legal memory aids, such as the indication of vulnerability on the board. Consulting the opponent's convention card is surely one of them. > Perhaps the Director should check that regulation under Law > 40B2(a) > does not permit use of opponents' System Card for this purpose. It would > be unusual in my experience if it does. The regulating authority would have to actively ban this, otherwise L40B2(c) kicks in allowing players to consult the opponent's credit card. I do not recall seeing any regulation concerning the purpose for consulting a convention card. Am I allowed to consult their convention card to determine if I should alert my partner's bid? (The ACBL convention card often indicates whether a bid is alertable.) Am I allowed to consult their convention card just to get a sense of how good of players they are? From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Oct 18 22:51:23 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:51:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <5E90CCD3A4BE4ED3AFC7FF089BF0713C@Mildred> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no><5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <000601ca4fde$fd652a00$f82f7e00$@no> <5E90CCD3A4BE4ED3AFC7FF089BF0713C@Mildred> Message-ID: <4ADB7FCB.5040805@nhcc.net> Grattan wrote: > ... an effort to use opponents' > System Card as an aid to memory within the meaning of Law 40C3(a). If L40C3a and L40B2c(iii) conflict, which one takes precedence? (I know which one looks to me more specific and which one more general.) > I do not believe the player can enquire during the auction and play about > a call that has not occurred and which was not available in the auction to > the player (who had no opportunity to make it). In the circumstances cited this > fits the call of 2D over 1NT exactly. This is, of course, new as of 2007. Prior to that, "fully and freely available" would have applied. Robert's original question had to do with a System Card, which may require disclosure additional to what would be required in response to questions on a specific deal. For example, in the ACBL, I can find out about my opponents' Blackwood responses even if they have not used Blackwood in the current auction. From: "Sven Pran" > The laws do not specify any reason for limiting why a player may look at > opponents' convention card, but it should be very clear that inspecting > it for purposes other than to understand opponents' auction is not > acceptable. Which Law says that, please? > How is the TD to handle the situation with respect of laws 27B1(a) and > 27B1(b) unless the insufficient bid can be explained trustworthy? I recall we had quite a long discussion of that very subject, and there were several possibilities suggested. I don't think we have official guidelines here in the ACBL, but Max Bavin's position, as I understand it, is that the Director finds out for himself what the player actually intended but insofar as possible avoids revealing that information to the other players. This is not the only possible approach (and not the one I personally would favor). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 18 23:27:24 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:27:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no><5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <000601ca4fde$fd652a00$f82f7e00$@no><5E90CCD3A4BE4ED3AFC7FF089BF0713C@Mildred> <4ADB7FCB.5040805@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > From: "Sven Pran" >> The laws do not specify any reason for limiting why a >> player may look at opponents' convention card, but it >> should be very clear that inspecting it for purposes >> other than to understand opponents' auction is not >> acceptable. > > Which Law says that, please? > +=+ If you have forgotten your defence to a 1NT opener the law says that you are not emtitled during the auction and play periods to *any* aids to your memory. This means that you may not use opponents' system card as such an aid. [Law 40C3(a)] The Regulating Authoirity may override this provision of the laws by regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 18 23:26:39 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:26:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> Message-ID: > Is that the proposition? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The general question is a player's rights when they want information about system agreements that they are not entitled to via L20F1 but they were entitled to via L40 prior to the auction. Can they ask anyway? Can they look at the convention card? Can they complain if the information isn't on the convention card? Situation 1. Learning the meaning of an intended bid. For example, a player makes a 5 Di response to 4NT, thinking it was Blackwood when it really wasn't. Or tries to open 1 Cl when RHO has already opened 1 Sp. The opponents want to know the meaning of a bid that did not occur and could not have occurred (but that probably did occur in the player's head). Situation 2. Learning the meaning of their own bid. A player has forgotten his convention and the opponents are playing that convention. He asks about a hypothetical auction in which the opponents use the convention. Answer. It seems to be perfectly legal, although reprehensible, to look at the opponent's card to find out the meaning of one's own bids. Should this be fixed? A easy and logical fix is to say that player's may look at the opponent's convention card only to get information they are entitled to as in L20F1. However, this will disallow looking at the convention card in Situation 1. I suspect not everyone would like that. It does not work to say that looking at the opponent's convention card is an illegal memory aid. Other situations are looking at the opponent's card to see: (1) if partner's bid is alertable; (2) to estimate the opponent's skill; (3) to discover the meaning of a possible future bid by the opponents. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 18 23:48:02 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:48:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <000601ca4fde$fd652a00$f82f7e00$@no> <5E90CCD3A4BE4ED3AFC7FF089BF0713C@Mildred> <4ADB7FCB.5040805@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:27:24 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 9:51 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > > >> From: "Sven Pran" >>> The laws do not specify any reason for limiting why a >>> player may look at opponents' convention card, but it >>> should be very clear that inspecting it for purposes >>> other than to understand opponents' auction is not >>> acceptable. >> >> Which Law says that, please? >> > +=+ If you have forgotten your defence to a 1NT opener > the law says that you are not emtitled during the auction > and play periods to *any* aids to your memory. This means > that you may not use opponents' system card as such an > aid. [Law 40C3(a)] > The Regulating Authoirity may override this provision > of the laws by regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If the opponents tell you what their bid means and then you forget, are you allowed to look at their convention card? Almost everyone would say that looking at the opponent's convention card is a legal memory aid (when you are entitled to that information). The general problem is you are taking A40C3 way too seriously. No matter what it says, legal procedures override it. (As Steve Willner noted.) So I may ask a director to repeat something that I have forgotten; I may ask the opponents to turn over their cards (if I have not turned over my card); I can look at what card I played to the last trick (if no one has played to the next trick); I may look at the bidding cards or vulnerability or who is dealer. And I can consult the opponent's convention card when it is my turn to bid or play (or take some other lawful action). From bobpark at consolidated.net Mon Oct 19 01:15:21 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:15:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> Message-ID: <4ADBA189.9050400@consolidated.net> Robert Frick wrote: > > Answer. It seems to be perfectly legal, although reprehensible, to look at > the opponent's card to find out the meaning of one's own bids. Should this > be fixed? > > Why is it reprehensible to look at a convention card (at your turn to call) if the ACBL says that you may look at the convention card? (I presume other jurisdictions say the same.) Are you saying that some ACBL rules are reprehensible? (Surely you would not cast aspersions at someone for following the rules.) --rep From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 19 01:16:38 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:16:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The party will be come as you are [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601ca4e6e$b65085e0$22f191a0$@com> Message-ID: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/18/2717115.htm The Maldives' government has held an underwater cabinet meeting in a bid to focus global attention on rising sea levels that threaten to submerge the low- lying atoll nation. President Mohamed Nasheed plunged first into the Indian Ocean followed by his ministers, all clad in scuba gear, for the nationally televised meeting in this archipelago known as an idyllic holiday getaway for the rich. Mr Nasheed and his deputy, Mohamed Waheed, and a dozen ministers sat behind tables arranged in a horseshoe at a depth of six metres and approved a resolution urging global action to cut carbon emissions. Tropical reef fish swam among the ministers and the nation's red and green flag with white crescent moon was planted in the seabed behind Mr Nasheed. After surfacing, he called for the UN's climate summit in Copenhagen in December to forge a deal to reduce carbon emissions blamed for rising sea levels that experts say could swamp the Maldives by the century's end. "We should come out of Copenhagen with a deal that will ensure that everyone will survive," said the 42-year-old president as he bobbed in the shimmering turquoise waters. He said there was "less talk" during the half-hour underwater meeting, but he had managed to get more work done. Imps Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1H 2S Pass Pass 3H Pass 6H Pass(1) Pass Pass (1) Charring hot seat hesitation You, South, hold: QT8632 A72 J92 J What opening lead (if any) do you choose? What opening lead (if any) do you think illegal? DALB: West, who passed over 2S and then raised 3H to 6H, has a serious penalty double of spades. North therefore has one spade or zero; he is not thinking of sacrificing in spades. He passed as dealer, so he does not have a seven-card or longer minor. He may be 1-0-6-6 and thinking of sacrificing in a minor, but far more likely is 0-1-6-6, having remembered just in time that a Lightner double with his spade void will not necessarily attract a spade lead. Since a slow pass demonstrably suggests a spade lead, I do not lead one (and what I do lead will not matter). David Burn London, England RJBH: Bad bidding by East-West is more likely than a 6-6 shape for North. The complete deal: 7 T84 KT65 QT953 AJ95 K4 96 KQJ53 873 AQ4 AK76 842 QT8632 A72 J92 J And North's break in tempo demonstrably suggested that North's mind was boggled by East-West's bizarre auction. At the table a non-spade was led, so then declarer could not be prevented from making 6H on the obvious non-simultaneous double squeeze. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bobpark at consolidated.net Mon Oct 19 01:17:04 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:17:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no><5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <000601ca4fde$fd652a00$f82f7e00$@no><5E90CCD3A4BE4ED3AFC7FF089BF0713C@Mildred> <4ADB7FCB.5040805@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4ADBA1F0.8000902@consolidated.net> Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 9:51 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > > > >> From: "Sven Pran" >> >>> The laws do not specify any reason for limiting why a >>> player may look at opponents' convention card, but it >>> should be very clear that inspecting it for purposes >>> other than to understand opponents' auction is not >>> acceptable. >>> >> Which Law says that, please? >> >> > +=+ If you have forgotten your defence to a 1NT opener > the law says that you are not emtitled during the auction > and play periods to *any* aids to your memory. Hmmmm...What about counting on your fingers? > This means > that you may not use opponents' system card as such an > aid. [Law 40C3(a)] > The Regulating Authoirity may override this provision > of the laws by regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091018/0be69338/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 19 01:46:52 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:46:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 40B2(c): Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent's system card (i) prior to the commencement of the auction, (ii) during the Clarification Period, and (iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play. Law 40C3(a): Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. +=+ If you have forgotten your defence to a 1NT opener the law says that you are not entitled during the auction and play periods to *any* aids to your memory. This means that you may not use opponents' system card as such an aid. [Law 40C3(a)] The Regulating Authority may override this provision of the laws by regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The Regulating Authority may modify either the use-of-system- card Law (Law 40B2(c)) or the aid-to-memory Law (Law 40C3(a)). If both Laws are left unmodified by the RA, with the RA merely promulgating a system card template, then these two Laws are inconsistent. (Unless the Law 40C3(a) word "permitted" is interpreted to include "permitted because system cards are mandatory".) In its most recent meeting the WBF LC enunciated a principle that in such cases of inconsistency specific Laws take precedence over more general Laws. By that logic, the specific use-of-system-card Law 40B2(c) takes precedence over the general aid-to-memory Law 40C3(a). Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Oct 19 02:00:34 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:00:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no><5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <000601ca4fde$fd652a00$f82f7e00$@no><5E90CCD3A4BE4ED3AFC7FF089BF0713C@Mildred> <4ADB7FCB.5040805@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4ADBAC22.3080000@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ If you have forgotten your defence to a 1NT opener the law says that you are not emtitled during the auction and play periods to *any* aids to your memory. This means that you may not use opponents' system card as such an aid. [Law 40C3(a)] The Regulating Authoirity may override this provision of the laws by regulation. [Nigel] John Probst jokingly suggested that a pick-up partnership could avoid misunderstandings by agreeing to play according to *opponent's* system card (as then they could consult it before each call). In the light of Grattan's interpretation, this would appear to be illegal :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 19 02:48:56 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:48:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701ca4f27$33485e20$99d91a60$@no> Message-ID: James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34: "Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social scientists call 'calibrating' their judgments. If your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a sense of how likely it is that your judgment is correct. But experts are much more like normal people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood that they're right. A survey on the question of overconfidence by economist Terrence Odean found that physicians, nurses, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and investment bankers all believed that they knew more than they did. Similarly, a recent study of foreign-exchange traders found that 70 percent of the time, the traders overestimated the accuracy of their exchange-rate predictions. In other words, it wasn't just that they were wrong; they also didn't have any idea how wrong they were. And that seems to be the rule among experts." Sven Pran: >...And the Director always has the possibility to send partner away >from the table while the offender explains his bid, a procedure that I >in fact never during my 30 years of directing have experienced being >used, but still as far as I can judge is available to the Director? Richard Hills: Never in 30 years? Only yesterday my RHO alerted my LHO's call, then RHO explained that he knew LHO's call was artificial, but that he had forgotten exactly which artificiality they had agreed. The Chief Director of Australia was summoned; he ordered RHO away from the table, and then he ordered LHO to explain the partnership understanding, which LHO did. Is the lack of use of this Directorial technique in Norway due to the bulk of Norwegian players using much easier-to-remember conventions than the whacko gadgets used by the overconfident Aussie system freaks? James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, page 34: "The only forecasters whose judgments are routinely well calibrated are expert bridge players and weathermen. It rains on 30 percent of the days when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance of rain." 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 Oct 19 07:41:04 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:41:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Yahoo Serious [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Young Einstein (1988 movie): Albert Einstein: "I'm a Tasmanian." Appendix, EBU Law and Ethics Committee minutes, 24th September 2009: 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: 1. A wild or gambling action may be related to the infraction. 2. 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. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Tasmanian on a temporary visa to Canberra since 1985 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Oct 19 08:25:48 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:25:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 73C rights [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, his "amusing" misunderstanding of The Proprieties: >...Amusingly in a current BBO discussion on cheating, posters believe >that almost all players, including top experts regularly use UI -- many >deliberately. Some, including a director, don't regard this practice as >cheating... Extract from the Wikipedia biography of Edgar Kaplan: As an administrator, in his capacity as the chairman of the protest committee of the Greater New York Bridge Association (GNYBA), Kaplan was able to steer between extreme views of the Proprieties. An older group of players tended to regard the Proprieties as pious nonsense, believing that it was unrealistic to demand that players bid and play in tempo: problems arise that require time to consider. A younger group demanded that violations of the proprieties be made part of a player's record. (Such violations can include, for example, fumbling with a doubleton on defense: a singleton would be played promptly, with no trace of indecision.) Kaplan's own view, adopted by the GNYBA and subsequently by the ACBL's National Laws Commission, was that if a player takes an action that could have been influenced by unauthorized information, that action constitutes an offense, but not an offense that should necessarily be regarded as cheating. Instead, the incident should be handled as a procedural matter - much as accidentally exposing a card is treated as a technical violation, not as an attempt to cheat. In this way, bridge is able to apply sanctions such as score adjustment when a player allows himself to be inadvertently and subconsciously influenced by, say, his partner's hesitation. It isn't necessary to go to the extreme of accusing the player of deliberate cheating. (Such accusations are reserved for intentional efforts to secretly communicate unauthorized information. These communications include actions such as signalling with sniffs, tapping a partner's shoes, even spreading the fingers differently according to the holding. Each of these, and others, has been attempted in national and international competition. A player found guilty of deliberate cheating is not given merely a score adjustment but is removed from the contest, from future contests, or from organized bridge entirely, depending on the severity of the offense.) 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 Oct 19 12:30:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:30:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 12:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > In its most recent meeting the WBF LC enunciated a principle > that in such cases of inconsistency specific Laws take > precedence over more general Laws. By that logic, the > specific use-of-system-card Law 40B2(c) takes precedence over > the general aid-to-memory Law 40C3(a). > +=+ It might be found that the purpose of the system card is disclosure of a partnership's methods and not as a tool by which opponents may remind themselves of their own methods. However and except upon the admission of the player, one might find it difficult to establish that a player consulting his opponent's card as to the strength of opponent's 1NT has chanced upon some other item on the card also. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 19 12:45:21 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:45:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601ca50a9$422708f0$c6751ad0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > From: > > > > In its most recent meeting the WBF LC enunciated a principle > > that in such cases of inconsistency specific Laws take > > precedence over more general Laws. By that logic, the > > specific use-of-system-card Law 40B2(c) takes precedence over > > the general aid-to-memory Law 40C3(a). > > > +=+ It might be found that the purpose of the system card is > disclosure of a partnership's methods and not as a tool by > which opponents may remind themselves of their own > methods. > However and except upon the admission of the player, > one might find it difficult to establish that a player consulting > his opponent's card as to the strength of opponent's 1NT > has chanced upon some other item on the card also. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The way I see it the very existence of the idea that started this thread reveals an alarming lack of understanding and/or possible contempt of the principles for a fair game of bridge among gentle-men and -women. Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 19 14:15:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:15:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000601ca50a9$422708f0$c6751ad0$@no> Message-ID: <92768549DBF4473AB78001A6665A830C@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Behalf Of Grattan >> From: > >> > >> > In its most recent meeting the WBF LC enunciated a principle >> > that in such cases of inconsistency specific Laws take >> > precedence over more general Laws. By that logic, the >> > specific use-of-system-card Law 40B2(c) takes precedence over >> > the general aid-to-memory Law 40C3(a). >> > >> +=+ It might be found that the purpose of the system card is >> disclosure of a partnership's methods and not as a tool by >> which opponents may remind themselves of their own >> methods. >> However and except upon the admission of the player, >> one might find it difficult to establish that a player consulting >> his opponent's card as to the strength of opponent's 1NT >> has chanced upon some other item on the card also. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > The way I see it the very existence of the idea that started this thread > reveals an alarming lack of understanding and/or possible contempt of the > principles for a fair game of bridge among gentle-men and -women. > +=+ Very understandable. But maybe we no longer live in a gentle world. Or did we ever in truth? Meanwhile if necessary to keep the game pure we can reinforce its rules to compensate. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 19 15:44:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:44:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:30:05 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 12:46 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> >> In its most recent meeting the WBF LC enunciated a principle >> that in such cases of inconsistency specific Laws take >> precedence over more general Laws. By that logic, the >> specific use-of-system-card Law 40B2(c) takes precedence over >> the general aid-to-memory Law 40C3(a). >> > +=+ It might be found that the purpose of the system card is > disclosure of a partnership's methods It think this is easy to find. > and not as a tool by > which opponents may remind themselves of their own > methods. I can't find anything about the purposes for which this information can be used. In contrast, there is a very clear and detailed explanation of when players may consult the convention card, > However and except upon the admission of the player, > one might find it difficult to establish that a player consulting > his opponent's card as to the strength of opponent's 1NT > has chanced upon some other item on the card also. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 19 16:07:57 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:07:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <4ADBA1F0.8000902@consolidated.net> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <000601ca4fde$fd652a00$f82f7e00$@no> <5E90CCD3A4BE4ED3AFC7FF089BF0713C@Mildred> <4ADB7FCB.5040805@nhcc.net> <4ADBA1F0.8000902@consolidated.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:17:04 -0400, Robert Park wrote: > Grattan wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "Of that there is no manner of doubt - >> No probable, possible shadow of doubt - >> No possible doubt whatever." >> 'The Gondoliers' >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Willner" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 9:51 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights >> >> >> >>> From: "Sven Pran" >>> >>>> The laws do not specify any reason for limiting why a >>>> player may look at opponents' convention card, but it >>>> should be very clear that inspecting it for purposes >>>> other than to understand opponents' auction is not >>>> acceptable. >>>> >>> Which Law says that, please? >>> >>> >> +=+ If you have forgotten your defence to a 1NT opener >> the law says that you are not emtitled during the auction >> and play periods to *any* aids to your memory. > > Hmmmm...What about counting on your fingers? A mnemonic is also a memory aid. From my dictionary: 1. Aiding or designed to aid the memory. I freely confess to using the following aid to my memory, calculation, and technique. I have memorized the combinations that add to 13. Then I do not have to add or subtract when I count suits, freeing my mind for other tasks such as remembering and calculating. > >> This means >> that you may not use opponents' system card as such an >> aid. [Law 40C3(a)] >> The Regulating Authoirity may override this provision >> of the laws by regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 19 16:13:24 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:13:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> +=+ It might be found that the purpose of the system card is >> disclosure of a partnership's methods > It think this is easy to find. < and not as a tool by which opponents may remind themselves of their own methods. > > I can't find anything about the purposes for which this > information can be used. In contrast, there is a very > clear and detailed explanation of when > players may consult the convention card, > +=+ " The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbiodden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or play." {WBFLC minute, 24 Aug '98) "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" [Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, 1997] "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" [Introduction to the Laws, 2007] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 19 16:37:23 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:37:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:13:24 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 2:44 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness > of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>> +=+ It might be found that the purpose of the system card is >>> disclosure of a partnership's methods > > > It think this is easy to find. > < > and not as a tool by which opponents may remind themselves > of their own methods. >> >> I can't find anything about the purposes for which this >> information can be used. In contrast, there is a very >> clear and detailed explanation of when >> players may consult the convention card, >> > +=+ " The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that > where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be > authorised, other actions if not expressly forbiodden were > also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the > Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure > and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' > and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving > from it is used in the auction or play." > {WBFLC minute, 24 Aug '98) > > "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" > [Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, 1997] > > "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" > [Introduction to the Laws, > 2007] > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 40B2c clearly states that players may consult their opponents' convention cards during the auction and play. It says exactly when. Therefore, this must be legal. There is nothing in the laws about the purpose for which the opponent's convention card may be consulted. That I can find. Hence, no limitation on purpose. If you find where it says the purpose to which convention cards can be consulted, then we might be able to answer the questions about whether the convention card can be consulted to determine what is alertable or to gauge the opponents' ability. Or for information about the opponent's bid which you are not entitled to get by Law 20. However, it is as if the laws forgot to say the acceptable uses for examining the convention card. Do the laws say what to do if information is not available that should be available? Whatever the procedure, it seems to apply to all uses of the information. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 19 17:37:30 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:37:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:13:24 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "Of that there is no manner of doubt - >> No probable, possible shadow of doubt - >> No possible doubt whatever." >> 'The Gondoliers' >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 2:44 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness >> of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>>> +=+ It might be found that the purpose of the system card is >>>> disclosure of a partnership's methods >> > >> It think this is easy to find. >> < >> and not as a tool by which opponents may remind themselves >> of their own methods. >>> >>> I can't find anything about the purposes for which this >>> information can be used. In contrast, there is a very >>> clear and detailed explanation of when >>> players may consult the convention card, >>> >> +=+ " The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that >> where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be >> authorised, other actions if not expressly forbiodden were >> also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the >> Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure >> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' >> and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving >> from it is used in the auction or play." >> {WBFLC minute, 24 Aug '98) >> >> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >> [Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, 1997] >> >> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >> [Introduction to the Laws, >> 2007] >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Law 40B2c clearly states that players may consult their opponents' > convention cards during the auction and play. It says exactly when. > Therefore, this must be legal. > > There is nothing in the laws about the purpose for which the opponent's > convention card may be consulted. That I can find. Hence, no limitation on > purpose. > > If you find where it says the purpose to which convention cards can be > consulted, then we might be able to answer the questions about whether the > convention card can be consulted to determine what is alertable or to > gauge the opponents' ability. Or for information about the opponent's bid > which you are not entitled to get by Law 20. > > However, it is as if the laws forgot to say the acceptable uses for > examining the convention card. > > Do the laws say what to do if information is not available that should be > available? Whatever the procedure, it seems to apply to all uses of the > information. > +=+ If you can show in law or regulation an authorisation to use the opponents' system card as an aid to memory of your own system then the information would not be extraneous. As has been noted already it is a source of information about opponents' methods and its use as such is a "legal procedure" within the terms of Law 16A1(c). +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 19 18:28:20 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:28:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:37:30 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:37 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:13:24 -0400, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> ******************************** >>> "Of that there is no manner of doubt - >>> No probable, possible shadow of doubt - >>> No possible doubt whatever." >>> 'The Gondoliers' >>> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 2:44 PM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness >>> of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> >>>>> +=+ It might be found that the purpose of the system card is >>>>> disclosure of a partnership's methods >>> > >>> It think this is easy to find. >>> < >>> and not as a tool by which opponents may remind themselves >>> of their own methods. >>>> >>>> I can't find anything about the purposes for which this >>>> information can be used. In contrast, there is a very >>>> clear and detailed explanation of when >>>> players may consult the convention card, >>>> >>> +=+ " The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that >>> where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be >>> authorised, other actions if not expressly forbiodden were >>> also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the >>> Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure >>> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' >>> and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving >>> from it is used in the auction or play." >>> {WBFLC minute, 24 Aug '98) >>> >>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >>> [Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, 1997] >>> >>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >>> [Introduction to the Laws, >>> 2007] >>> >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Law 40B2c clearly states that players may consult their opponents' >> convention cards during the auction and play. It says exactly when. >> Therefore, this must be legal. >> >> There is nothing in the laws about the purpose for which the opponent's >> convention card may be consulted. That I can find. Hence, no limitation >> on >> purpose. >> >> If you find where it says the purpose to which convention cards can be >> consulted, then we might be able to answer the questions about whether >> the >> convention card can be consulted to determine what is alertable or to >> gauge the opponents' ability. Or for information about the opponent's >> bid >> which you are not entitled to get by Law 20. >> >> However, it is as if the laws forgot to say the acceptable uses for >> examining the convention card. >> >> Do the laws say what to do if information is not available that should >> be >> available? Whatever the procedure, it seems to apply to all uses of the >> information. >> > +=+ If you can show in law or regulation an authorisation to use the > opponents' system card as an aid to memory of your own system > then the information would not be extraneous. As has been noted already > it is a source of information about opponents' methods and its use as > such > is a "legal procedure" within the terms of Law 16A1(c). +=+ If I understand you correctly, you are agreeing that it would be better if Law 40 said "Player's may consult their opponent's convention cards to learn information they are entitled to by L20F1 *and only that information*" But, you are saying, as long as Law 40 says "Player's may consult their opponent's convention cards to learn information they are entitled to by L20F1", it comes to the same thing. Am I getting it right? The problem is, I can't find any law like that. Can you? I think it's missing. Note also that you probably will not find good agreement on the missing law. I am pretty sure a lot of people want to allow looking at the convention card to discover the meaning of an insufficient bid. Or to estimate the opponent's ability. Or to find out about bids when have not been made yet (though that apparently is a hole in L20F1). From bobpark at consolidated.net Mon Oct 19 22:09:18 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:09:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601ca50a9$422708f0$c6751ad0$@no> References: <000601ca50a9$422708f0$c6751ad0$@no> Message-ID: <4ADCC76E.5020408@consolidated.net> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Grattan > >> From: >> > > >>> In its most recent meeting the WBF LC enunciated a principle >>> that in such cases of inconsistency specific Laws take >>> precedence over more general Laws. By that logic, the >>> specific use-of-system-card Law 40B2(c) takes precedence over >>> the general aid-to-memory Law 40C3(a). >>> >>> >> +=+ It might be found that the purpose of the system card is >> disclosure of a partnership's methods and not as a tool by >> which opponents may remind themselves of their own >> methods. >> However and except upon the admission of the player, >> one might find it difficult to establish that a player consulting >> his opponent's card as to the strength of opponent's 1NT >> has chanced upon some other item on the card also. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > The way I see it the very existence of the idea that started this thread > reveals an alarming lack of understanding and/or possible contempt of the > principles for a fair game of bridge among gentle-men and -women. > > Sven > > This seems to be a somewhat elitist view. (We have a lot of that going around in the states, where some people feel that their personal views are so elegant or righteous that they ought to be able to impose them on others...or shame others into conforming if the situation and/or laws prohibit using force.) --rep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091019/d25f29f2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 19 23:28:49 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:28:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601ca50a9$422708f0$c6751ad0$@no> Message-ID: C.S. Lewis, The Last Battle: "Sir," said Emeth, "I do not know whether you are my friend or my foe, but I should count it to my honour to have you for either. Has not one of the poets said that a noble friend is the best gift and a noble enemy the next best?" Sven Pran, noble enemy: >The way I see it the very existence of the idea that started this thread >reveals an alarming lack of understanding and/or possible contempt of the >principles for a fair game of bridge among gentle-men and -women. WBF Code of Practice quibbles: "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism." "A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a violation of the laws or of a regulation made under the laws. If an appeal committee awards a procedural penalty it should specify what law or regulation has been violated." Richard Hills notes: If a Regulating Authority believes that a player's default rights under Law 40B2(c) to consult her opponent's system card should be more limited, then that Regulating Authority should create a specific regulation saying so. In the absence of such a specific regulation, it is ultra vires for the Director in charge to define the player as "Not a gentle-woman." Best wishes Shift the Ape, Narnia -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 20 00:18:00 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:18:00 -0700 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: >From Richard Hills > > Sven Pran, noble enemy: > >>The way I see it the very existence of the idea that started this >>thread >>reveals an alarming lack of understanding and/or possible contempt >>of the >>principles for a fair game of bridge among gentle-men and -women. > > WBF Code of Practice quibbles: > > "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a > player > is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. > A player > who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to > criticism." > > "A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a > violation of the > laws or of a regulation made under the laws. If an appeal > committee awards > a procedural penalty it should specify what law or regulation has > been > violated." Marv: I can't find anything like the above in Law 90, Procedural Penalties. These are not meant to augment the provisions of other laws, or to punish the unethical, but to penalize deviations from correct duplicate bridge procedures, typified in L90B. The title of L90 (the number changes over time) was changed in 1975 from "Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural Penalties" in order to make this clear. The Drafting Committee making the change was chaired by Alfred Sheinwold, with members John Gerber, Don Oakie, Edgar Kaplan, and Edgar Theus. Their wishes should be honored. According to the principle of *ejusdem generis* (of the same kind), using PPs for ethical violations is wrong in a legal sense.. >From legal-explanations.com: Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things. Example: If a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcyles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation. Except for extreme cases handled by L91, disciplinary action should take place outside the game, not within it. Besides, PPs are not recorded in a systematic way, while Player Memos or the equivalent are permanent records useful for documenting repeated ethical abuses by a player. > > Richard Hills notes: > > If a Regulating Authority believes that a player's default rights > under Law > 40B2(c) to consult her opponent's system card should be more > limited, then > that Regulating Authority should create a specific regulation > saying so. > > In the absence of such a specific regulation, it is ultra vires > for the > Director in charge to define the player as "Not a gentle-woman." Some of us feel that there are unwritten laws of conduct that should be observed in order to comply with the spiirit of the game. It goes without saying that sneaking views of extraneous information on an opposing system card does not comply, even if not expressly forbidden. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 20 00:51:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:51:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: First line of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: "There was once a boy named Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it." Law 2: "...vulnerability are designated as follows..." Law 7A: "When a board is to be played it is placed in the centre of the table until play is completed." Marvin French: >Some of us feel that there are unwritten laws of conduct that should >be observed in order to comply with the spirit of the game. It goes >without saying that sneaking views of extraneous information on an >opposing system card does not comply, even if not expressly >forbidden. Richard Hills: Some of us feel that there are written laws of conduct that should be observed in order to comply with the spirit of the game. Law 16A1(c): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following)" Richard Hills: It goes without saying that sneaking views of extraneous information about vulnerability on a board in the centre of the table does comply, because expressly permitted by Law 16A1(c), despite that board being an "aid to memory" about the vulnerability. Best wishes Shift the Ape, Narnia -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Oct 20 02:57:10 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:57:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Fafiated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Wikipedia: >>When fans say they're gafiating, it means they intend to put some >>distance between themselves and fandom. This can be either a temporary >>or a long-term separation. >> >>A closely related term is "Fafia" or "Fafiation", from the acronym for >>"Forced away from it all." To fafiate is to put aside fannish things, >>not because one prefers to do so, but rather because one is obliged to >>do so. Fafiated blmler Ed Reppert, 1st July 2005, discussing auction below: [snip] >There are many hands where such-and-such contract should be bid, even >if it goes down. Not saying that this is such a case, just that the >actual result on a hand has little, if anything, to do with whether >there were logical alternatives to whatever call is in question. > >It occurs to me that you may be trying to (gently :) suggest that any >idiot can see that passing is an LA - and maybe it is. But I'm not just >any idiot - I'm unique. :-) Imps (Knockout Teams) Dlr: West Vul: East-West East-West were playing a canape relay system. North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Dorothy Richard 1D (1) 3C (2) Dble(3) 4C 4H 5C 5H (4) Pass ? (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major. Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, West held maximum values for their opening bid of 1D. (2) Preempt (3) Negative (4) Break in tempo You, West, hold A5 Q9862 AK43 Q6 Question 1: Does East's break in tempo demonstrably suggest that 6H will be a more successful call than Pass? If the answer to Question 1 is Yes, then -> Question 2: Would 6H be the only logical alternative for your "uniquely idiotic" class of player? :-) :-) Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 09:14:02 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:14:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fafiated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/10/20 : > > Wikipedia: > >>>When fans say they're gafiating, it means they intend to put some >>>distance between themselves and fandom. This can be either a temporary >>>or a long-term separation. >>> >>>A closely related term is "Fafia" or "Fafiation", from the acronym for >>>"Forced away from it all." To fafiate is to put aside fannish things, >>>not because one prefers to do so, but rather because one is obliged to >>>do so. > > Fafiated blmler Ed Reppert, 1st July 2005, discussing auction below: > > [snip] > >>There are many hands where such-and-such contract should be bid, even >>if it goes down. Not saying that this is such a case, just that the >>actual result on a hand has little, if anything, to do with whether >>there were logical alternatives to whatever call is in question. >> >>It occurs to me that you may be trying to (gently :) suggest that any >>idiot can see that passing is an LA - and maybe it is. But I'm not just >>any idiot - I'm unique. :-) > > Imps (Knockout Teams) > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > ? ? ? ? ?Dorothy ? ? ? ? ? ? Richard > 1D (1) ? ?3C (2) ? ?Dble(3) ? 4C > 4H ? ? ? ?5C ? ? ? ?5H ?(4) ? Pass > ? > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major. ?Since East-West's > ? ?system uses a strong 1C, West held maximum values for their opening > ? ?bid of 1D. > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Break in tempo > > You, West, hold > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > Question 1: Does East's break in tempo demonstrably suggest that 6H will > ? ? ? ? ? ?be a more successful call than Pass? > > If the answer to Question 1 is Yes, then -> > > Question 2: Would 6H be the only logical alternative for your "uniquely > ? ? ? ? ? ?idiotic" class of player? ?:-) ?:-) Question 3: Would pass over 5C be forcing? > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 20 10:28:42 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:28:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fafiated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ADD74BA.1040805@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Imps (Knockout Teams) > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Richard > 1D (1) 3C (2) Dble(3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H (4) Pass > ? > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major. Since East-West's > system uses a strong 1C, West held maximum values for their opening > bid of 1D. > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Break in tempo > > You, West, hold > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > Question 1: Does East's break in tempo demonstrably suggest that 6H will > be a more successful call than Pass? > > AG : not necessarily. The hesitation could have been between doubling and bidding 5H. Being middle-of-the-road between doubling (or passing) and bidding slam, you can't know on which side of the 5H bid East was. Hz could have held this : KJx AKxxx xxxx x Where he could have doubled 5C, but feared the penalty would undercompensate. He was probably wrong, but that's another story. He does't know our pattern is only 5422. 6H has very little paly. Of course, he might also hold the same hand cum DQ, where 5H is a bit of an underbid and 6H should indeed be played. So, I answer that nothing special is suggested by his tempo, as is usually the case with middle-of-the-road actions e.g. : tempo then raising partner's major opening : has he very little and did he think to begin with the weak side of a forcing 1NT, or has he nearly enough for bididng 1NT then 3H ? Best regards Alain NB : playing limited canap? openings, the above hand is an obvious responsive double. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 20 13:40:25 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:40:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:18:00 -0400, Marvin L French wrote: > >> From Richard Hills > >> >> Sven Pran, noble enemy: >> >>> The way I see it the very existence of the idea that started this >>> thread >>> reveals an alarming lack of understanding and/or possible contempt >>> of the >>> principles for a fair game of bridge among gentle-men and -women. >> >> WBF Code of Practice quibbles: >> >> "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a >> player >> is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. >> A player >> who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to >> criticism." >> >> "A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a >> violation of the >> laws or of a regulation made under the laws. If an appeal >> committee awards >> a procedural penalty it should specify what law or regulation has >> been >> violated." > > Marv: > > I can't find anything like the above in Law 90, Procedural > Penalties. These are not meant to augment the provisions of other > laws, or to punish the unethical, but to penalize deviations from > correct duplicate bridge procedures, typified in L90B. The title of > L90 (the number changes over time) was changed in 1975 from > "Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural Penalties" in order to make > this clear. The Drafting Committee making the change was chaired by > Alfred Sheinwold, with members John Gerber, Don Oakie, Edgar Kaplan, > and Edgar Theus. Their wishes should be honored. > > According to the principle of *ejusdem generis* (of the same kind), > using PPs for ethical violations is wrong in a legal sense.. > >> From legal-explanations.com: Where a law lists specific classes of > persons or things, the general statements only apply to the same > kind of persons or things. Example: If a law refers to automobiles, > trucks, tractors, motorcyles and other motor-powered vehicles, > "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of > land-based transportation. > > Except for extreme cases handled by L91, disciplinary action should > take place outside the game, not within it. Besides, PPs are not > recorded in a systematic way, while Player Memos or the equivalent > are permanent records useful for documenting repeated ethical abuses > by a player. >> >> Richard Hills notes: >> >> If a Regulating Authority believes that a player's default rights >> under Law >> 40B2(c) to consult her opponent's system card should be more >> limited, then >> that Regulating Authority should create a specific regulation >> saying so. >> >> In the absence of such a specific regulation, it is ultra vires >> for the >> Director in charge to define the player as "Not a gentle-woman." > > Some of us feel that there are unwritten laws of conduct that should > be observed in order to comply with the spiirit of the game. It goes > without saying that sneaking views of extraneous information on an > opposing system card does not comply, even if not expressly > forbidden. But it would be very nice if the law corresponded to your sense of fairness. One problem is that some players will try to take advantage of the laws. Then you run into the situation where players have different opinions about what is fair. Consensus is MUCH better. As director, I really like it when I can find my rulings in the lawbook. When someone thinks my ruling is unfair, I can read the ruling from the book. That takes some of the steam out of their protest. Worst case is when I have to admit that directors do things differently, or it isn't in the book. Well, the worst case is when the law book says something different from the ruling I want to make. And I suspect AC's are not immune to lawyering. You are trying to decide how high to pre-empt over the opponent's opening bid. You ask the opps how high they play negative doubles. They refuse to answer. A negative double was not made and could not have been made -- you are asking about a hypothetical auction. Your sense of fair conduct is that you can look at their convention card; their sense of fair conduct is that it is okay if that part of the convention card is blank, they will fill it in if it becomes relevant. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 20 14:41:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:41:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> Message-ID: <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>> < >>>>> >>>> +=+ " The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that >>>> where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be >>>> authorised, other actions if not expressly forbiodden were >>>> also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the >>>> Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure >>>> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' >>>> and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving >>>> from it is used in the auction or play." >>>> {WBFLC minute, 24 Aug '98) >>>> >>>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >>>> [Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, 1997] >>>> >>>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >>>> [Introduction to the Laws, >>>> 2007] >>>> >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >>> Law 40B2c clearly states that players may consult their opponents' >>> convention cards during the auction and play. It says exactly when. >>> Therefore, this must be legal. >>> >>> There is nothing in the laws about the purpose for which the opponent's >>> convention card may be consulted. That I can find. Hence, no limitation >>> on purpose. >>> +=+ This last statement is based upon a wrong assumption The use of the system card is regulated by the Regulating Authority. See Law 40B2(a). The WBF regulation specifies that the use of the System card is for disclosure of the partnership's conventions and treatments. No other use is authorized. Bear in mind (see minute above) that positive authorization is needed for any other use Consult rhe regulations for the tournaments in which you play, and if they are unclear ask the Regulating Authority to clarify. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 20 15:00:21 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:00:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:41:27 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 5:28 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>>>> < >>>>>> >>>>> +=+ " The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that >>>>> where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be >>>>> authorised, other actions if not expressly forbiodden were >>>>> also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the >>>>> Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure >>>>> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' >>>>> and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving >>>>> from it is used in the auction or play." >>>>> {WBFLC minute, 24 Aug '98) >>>>> >>>>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >>>>> [Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, 1997] >>>>> >>>>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >>>>> [Introduction to the Laws, >>>>> 2007] >>>>> >>>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>> >>>> Law 40B2c clearly states that players may consult their opponents' >>>> convention cards during the auction and play. It says exactly when. >>>> Therefore, this must be legal. >>>> >>>> There is nothing in the laws about the purpose for which the >>>> opponent's >>>> convention card may be consulted. That I can find. Hence, no >>>> limitation >>>> on purpose. >>>> > +=+ This last statement is based upon a wrong assumption The use of the > system card is regulated by the Regulating Authority. See Law 40B2(a). > The WBF regulation specifies that the use of the System card is > for > disclosure of the partnership's conventions and treatments. No other use > is authorized. Bear in mind (see minute above) that positive > authorization > is needed for any other use Consult rhe regulations for the tournaments > in which you play, and if they are unclear ask the Regulating Authority > to > clarify. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ A clear answer! I will take it. I may use my opponents' convention card to discover their conventions and treatments. Legal: Finding out the meaning of their conventions and treatment. Including to discover the meaning of my own bid. Or to estimate their ability. Illegal: Looking at their card to discover what is alertable and what is not. (Unless permitted by some other law.) From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Tue Oct 20 15:34:26 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:34:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ADDBC62.5000009@yahoo.co.uk> [Robert Frick] You are trying to decide how high to pre-empt over the opponent's opening bid. You ask the opps how high they play negative doubles. They refuse to answer. A negative double was not made and could not have been made -- you are asking about a hypothetical auction. Your sense of fair conduct is that you can look at their convention card; their sense of fair conduct is that it is okay if that part of the convention card is blank, they will fill it in if it becomes relevant. [Nige1] Some time ago, there was a discussion about a similar topic. The conclusion was that agreements should follow the chronology of events. Since the pre-empt comes before the double, you must define your pre-empt before opponents need to define their double. Rule-makers may deem this to be too obvious to spell out but I think it should be in the law-book. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 20 16:46:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:46:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred><7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:41:27 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "Of that there is no manner of doubt - >> No probable, possible shadow of doubt - >> No possible doubt whatever." >> 'The Gondoliers' >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 5:28 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>>>>> < >>>>>>> >>>>>> +=+ " The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that >>>>>> where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be >>>>>> authorised, other actions if not expressly forbiodden were >>>>>> also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the >>>>>> Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure >>>>>> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' >>>>>> and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving >>>>>> from it is used in the auction or play." >>>>>> {WBFLC minute, 24 Aug '98) >>>>>> >>>>>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >>>>>> [Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, 1997] >>>>>> >>>>>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >>>>>> [Introduction to the Laws, >>>>>> 2007] >>>>>> >>>>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>>> >>>>> Law 40B2c clearly states that players may consult their opponents' >>>>> convention cards during the auction and play. It says exactly when. >>>>> Therefore, this must be legal. >>>>> >>>>> There is nothing in the laws about the purpose for which the >>>>> opponent's >>>>> convention card may be consulted. That I can find. Hence, no >>>>> limitation >>>>> on purpose. >>>>> >> +=+ This last statement is based upon a wrong assumption The use of the >> system card is regulated by the Regulating Authority. See Law 40B2(a). >> The WBF regulation specifies that the use of the System card is >> for >> disclosure of the partnership's conventions and treatments. No other use >> is authorized. Bear in mind (see minute above) that positive >> authorization >> is needed for any other use Consult rhe regulations for the tournaments >> in which you play, and if they are unclear ask the Regulating Authority >> to >> clarify. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > A clear answer! I will take it. I may use my opponents' convention card to > discover their conventions and treatments. > > Legal: Finding out the meaning of their conventions and treatment. > Including to discover the meaning of my own bid. Or to estimate their > ability. > > Illegal: Looking at their card to discover what is alertable and what is > not. (Unless permitted by some other law.) > +=+ On the basis that I do not agree "Including to discover the meaning of my own bid" to be legal and if it is apparent to the Director in my view it is open to sanction. ~ G ~ +=+. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 20 17:01:46 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:01:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar In-Reply-To: <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> I am inclined to believe the native english speaker over the Norwegians of Belgians, and I'll try to keep from using the subjunctive in future. There is no separate law governing Alcatraz coups. We just deal with them exactly the same as if the infraction was accidental (or rather, we do the reverse). Herman. Marvin L French wrote: > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > >> 2009/10/16 Marvin L French : > >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> >>>> There is no separate law governing Alcatraz coups. We just deal >>>> with them exactly the same as if the infraction were accidental >>>> (or >>>> rather, we do the reverse). >>> This is non-laws, sorry, but would some wordsmith out there tell >>> me whether this use of the subjunctive "were" is legitimate? The >>> Bridge World employs the same usage, and it grates on my nerves >>> every time I see it. It feels wrong to me, and not just a >>> violation >>> of common usage ("was" if not contrary to fact, and the >>> subjunctive >>> "had been" if contrary to fact). It seems in accord with the >>> common >>> myth that the verb following an "if" must always be in the >>> subjunctive mood. >>> >>> My instinct says that this use of the subjunctive "were" must be >>> followed by an infinitive to be legitimate, e.g., . "... if the >>> infraction were found to be accidental.." "Were" is present >>> subjunctive, despite the same spelling as the indicative "were" >>> of >>> past tense. Putting an infinitive after it pulls it into a sort >>> of >>> present, or rather a non-time, which H.G. Fowler called "utopian >>> time." >>> >>> Am I wrong? >> Yes, you're wrong. The subjunctive form as used by Herman is >> entirely correct. >> As in the lyrics: "If I were a rich man..etc". To be in past >> subjunctive is I were, you were/he/she/it were, we/you/they were. > Oh yes, I forgot, lyrics are authoritative. However, "If I were a > rich man" is actually correct *present* subjunctive, condition > contrary to fact. > > That doesn't apply to my example, and by the way, "were" is not past > subjunctive, it is past indicative and present subjunctive. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 20 17:01:56 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:01:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred><7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> Message-ID: <4ADDD0E4.40509@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > No possible doubt whatever." > 'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:00 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:41:27 -0400, Grattan >> wrote: >> >> >>> Grattan Endicott>> ******************************** >>> "Of that there is no manner of doubt - >>> No probable, possible shadow of doubt - >>> No possible doubt whatever." >>> 'The Gondoliers' >>> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 5:28 PM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> < >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +=+ " The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that >>>>>>> where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be >>>>>>> authorised, other actions if not expressly forbiodden were >>>>>>> also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the >>>>>>> Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure >>>>>>> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' >>>>>>> and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving >>>>>>> from it is used in the auction or play." >>>>>>> {WBFLC minute, 24 Aug '98) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >>>>>>> [Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, 1997] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure" >>>>>>> [Introduction to the Laws, >>>>>>> 2007] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>>>>> >>>>>> Law 40B2c clearly states that players may consult their opponents' >>>>>> convention cards during the auction and play. It says exactly when. >>>>>> Therefore, this must be legal. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is nothing in the laws about the purpose for which the >>>>>> opponent's >>>>>> convention card may be consulted. That I can find. Hence, no >>>>>> limitation >>>>>> on purpose. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> +=+ This last statement is based upon a wrong assumption The use of the >>> system card is regulated by the Regulating Authority. See Law 40B2(a). >>> The WBF regulation specifies that the use of the System card is >>> for >>> disclosure of the partnership's conventions and treatments. No other use >>> is authorized. Bear in mind (see minute above) that positive >>> authorization >>> is needed for any other use Consult rhe regulations for the tournaments >>> in which you play, and if they are unclear ask the Regulating Authority >>> to >>> clarify. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> A clear answer! I will take it. I may use my opponents' convention card to >> discover their conventions and treatments. >> >> Legal: Finding out the meaning of their conventions and treatment. >> Including to discover the meaning of my own bid. Or to estimate their >> ability. >> >> Illegal: Looking at their card to discover what is alertable and what is >> not. (Unless permitted by some other law.) >> >> > +=+ On the basis that I do not agree "Including to discover the > meaning of my own bid" to be legal and if it is apparent to the > Director in my view it is open to sanction. ~ G ~ +=+. > AG : there is also the basis that nobody may use anything to help one's memory. This has been said on blml many times. So if the card is written e.g. (correctly IMHO) "4C/D : Namyats = strong 4-bid in corresponding major" and by looking at it you're remembered what Namyats (that you do use) means, it was illegal help. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Oct 20 17:18:11 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:18:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar In-Reply-To: <4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP> <4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201ca5198$89fe6570$9dfb3050$@com> [HdW I am inclined to believe the native english speaker over the Norwegians of Belgians, and I'll try to keep from using the subjunctive in future. There is no separate law governing Alcatraz coups. We just deal with them exactly the same as if the infraction was accidental (or rather, we do the reverse). [DALB] This is simply wrong (recall that Marvin speaks American, not English). "If the infraction was accidental" means "there is doubt as to whether the infraction was accidental, but assuming that it was, then..." "If the infraction were accidental" means "the infraction was in fact deliberate, but if we assume that it was not, then..." Herman's use of the subjunctive is therefore quite correct. If Marvin was able to speak English, he has now forgotten how to do so; if Marvin were able to speak English, he would not have raised the question in the first place. David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 20 17:31:38 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:31:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> Message-ID: <4ADDD7DA.7090105@skynet.be> This is the kind of answer by Grattan (and the WBF) that I dislike: Grattan wrote: >>>> > +=+ This last statement is based upon a wrong assumption The use of the > system card is regulated by the Regulating Authority. See Law 40B2(a). > The WBF regulation specifies that the use of the System card is for > disclosure of the partnership's conventions and treatments. No other use > is authorized. Bear in mind (see minute above) that positive authorization > is needed for any other use Consult rhe regulations for the tournaments > in which you play, and if they are unclear ask the Regulating Authority to > clarify. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This answer tells us that NBOs who fail to have regulations like this have only themselves to blame if a player does something that in some other country (or a WBF tournament) is considered illegal. Why does the WBF not put these regulations into the laws, so that we are not obliged to write thousands of regulations ourselves? I find the regulation above quite correct, and a solution to the problem about the Capeletti 2Di - but this regulation does not exist in Belgium. Why? Herman. From blml at arcor.de Tue Oct 20 18:22:11 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:22:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Fafiated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15476004.1256055731471.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps (Knockout Teams) > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Richard > 1D (1) 3C (2) Dble(3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H (4) Pass > ? > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major. Since East-West's > system uses a strong 1C, West held maximum values for their opening > bid of 1D. > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Break in tempo > > You, West, hold > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > Question 1: Does East's break in tempo demonstrably suggest that 6H will > be a more successful call than Pass? That depends on whether a pass by E over 5C would have been forcing. I don't think it should be forcing, W might have stretched to bid 4H because of E's negative double; furthermore W's 1D opening bid is limited. I thus think that E might have chosen between a pass and 5H, and thus E's hesitation does not "demonstrably" suggest bidding 6H. BTW, I pass. I have no C control, and weak hearts. I do not even consider bidding 6H. Thomas Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 20 22:44:54 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:44:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> Message-ID: <7EAF8B42-1A0D-4303-A790-14BB6ADEF00E@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:08:01 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> ......... >>> The problem is, the actual bid was a 2Di overcall of 2NT. That >>> has no >> meaning. >>> Hopefully. >>> >>> YOu want to know about the meaning of a 2Di overcall of 1NT. That >>> bid >> didn't >>> occur and couldn't have occurred. >>> >> >> Oh, come on - please! >> >> 2Di over 2NT is of course an illegal bid, but it was made and sure >> had an >> intended meaning (unless it was a mistake for a legal call in >> which case >> Law >> 25A applies and the 2D bid is considered never made). >> >> Opponents are entitled to know the intended meaning of an >> insufficient >> bid, >> LHO even before he decides whether or not to accept it as legal >> (Law 27). >> > > I think you are still using the old version of L20F1, good only in > ACBL-land. The new version, passed at Beijing and discussed and left > unchanged at Sao Paulo. > > 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a > player > may request and > receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. At this > time he is > entitled to an > explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available > alternative > calls not made, and > any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of > action > among the > foregoing. (An ?alternative? call is not the same call with another > meaning ? for example, if > the reply to an opponent is that ?5D shows diamonds preference?, > any reply > to a further > question ?what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?? is given > voluntarily > and not as a > requirement of Law 20F1.) > > You could not get a clearer refutation of the claim that opponents are > entitled to the intended meaning of a bid -- if 5 Di was meant as a > Blackwood response but 4NT was not Blackwood according to the > system, the > opponents are not entitled to know the intended meaning of a bid. > > Can they look at the convention card to see how this is filled out? > If so, > can they complain to the director if this part is not filled out or > filled > out incorrectly? I would imagine so. They can certainly look at the CC, and there's no law against perusing it -- whether you look can't depend entirely on what you hope to find -- and if it's improperly filled out they would seem to have cause to bring this to the TD's attention entirely apart from the business of disclosure with regard to the current auction. But that would mean that, from a practical standpoint, the CC is now serving an accidental purpose for which it was never intended: to regulate which specific explanations to which the opponents are not entitled to under L20F1 they are nevertheless entitled to under the CC regulations. Because, as dumb as that sounds, either that's what they do, or we need to find a way to determine what a player's motivation was every time one picks up an opponent's CC. Is this dumb, or stupid, or what? Unfortunately, it's just the tip of the iceberg of the hellish problems that will be caused as people learn of the WBF's entirely new doctrine of less-than-full disclosure, at least if they can bring themselves to believe it. I continue to be convinced, Grattan's reassurances to the contrary notwithstanding, that the folks who wrote the Beijing minute really did not entirely understand what they were doing or what the consequences might be. What, oh what, I keep asking, was wrong with "they're entitled to know as much as you do about your partnership understandings"? What was broke that needed fixing? Why have they done this to us? Anyone? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 21 00:54:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:54:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be><000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no><000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no><000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <7EAF8B42-1A0D-4303-A790-14BB6ADEF00E@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights >> I would imagine so. They can certainly look at the CC, and there's no law against perusing it -- whether you look can't depend entirely on what you hope to find -- and if it's improperly filled out they would seem to have cause to bring this to the TD's attention entirely apart from the business of disclosure with regard to the current auction. But that would mean that, from a practical standpoint, the CC is now serving an accidental purpose for which it was never intended: to regulate which specific explanations to which the opponents are not entitled to under L20F1 they are nevertheless entitled to under the CC regulations. Because, as dumb as that sounds, either that's what they do, or we need to find a way to determine what a player's motivation was every time one picks up an opponent's CC. Is this dumb, or stupid, or what? Unfortunately, it's just the tip of the iceberg of the hellish problems that will be caused as people learn of the WBF's entirely new doctrine of less-than-full disclosure, at least if they can bring themselves to believe it. I continue to be convinced, Grattan's reassurances to the contrary notwithstanding, that the folks who wrote the Beijing minute really did not entirely understand what they were doing or what the consequences might be. What, oh what, I keep asking, was wrong with "they're entitled to know as much as you do about your partnership understandings"? What was broke that needed fixing? Why have they done this to us? Anyone? +=+ So far as 'entitled to know' is concerned, this continues to be the entitlement in respect of the prior auction just as it was before . The Beijing minute only reiterates the situation in Law 20F, in 1997 as in 2007, that you may ask about calls made or available and not made, in the auction up to the point at which you ask. If information is missing from the System card enquiry may be made about it if it falls into these categories. Omissions not relevant in these terms may be cleared up after the hand is finished. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 21 00:37:09 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:37:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> <4ADDD7DA.7090105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5BB4AFDBA0F04BEEB3947208B42559FA@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > This is the kind of answer by Grattan (and the WBF) that I dislike: > > Grattan wrote: >>>>> >> +=+ This last statement is based upon a wrong assumption The use of the >> system card is regulated by the Regulating Authority. See Law 40B2(a). >> The WBF regulation specifies that the use of the System card is >> for >> disclosure of the partnership's conventions and treatments. No other use >> is authorized. Bear in mind (see minute above) that positive >> authorization >> is needed for any other use Consult rhe regulations for the tournaments >> in which you play, and if they are unclear ask the Regulating Authority >> to >> clarify. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > This answer tells us that NBOs who fail to have regulations like this > have only themselves to blame if a player does something that in some > other country (or a WBF tournament) is considered illegal. Why does the > WBF not put these regulations into the laws, so that we are not obliged > to write thousands of regulations ourselves? > > I find the regulation above quite correct, and a solution to the problem > about the Capeletti 2Di - but this regulation does not exist in Belgium. > Why? > > Herman. > +=+ In an ideal world, perhaps, there would be uniform treatment of such things. But in a world where different authorities have their different ideas only so much can be achieved. I can only say it like it is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 08:51:05 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:51:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <7EAF8B42-1A0D-4303-A790-14BB6ADEF00E@starpower.net> Message-ID: 2009/10/21 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Of that there is no manner of doubt - > ?No probable, possible shadow of doubt - > ?No possible doubt whatever." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?'The Gondoliers' > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:44 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > > >>> > I would imagine so. ?They can certainly look at the CC, and there's > no law against perusing it -- whether you look can't depend entirely > on what you hope to find -- and if it's improperly filled out they > would seem to have cause to bring this to the TD's attention entirely > apart from the business of disclosure with regard to the current > auction. > > But that would mean that, from a practical standpoint, the CC is now > serving an accidental purpose for which it was never intended: to > regulate which specific explanations to which the opponents are not > entitled to under L20F1 they are nevertheless entitled to under the > CC regulations. ?Because, as dumb as that sounds, either that's what > they do, or we need to find a way to determine what a player's > motivation was every time one picks up an opponent's CC. > > Is this dumb, or stupid, or what? ?Unfortunately, it's just the tip > of the iceberg of the hellish problems that will be caused as people > learn of the WBF's entirely new doctrine of less-than-full > disclosure, at least if they can bring themselves to believe it. ?I > continue to be convinced, Grattan's reassurances to the contrary > notwithstanding, that the folks who wrote the Beijing minute really > did not entirely understand what they were doing or what the > consequences might be. > > What, oh what, I keep asking, was wrong with "they're entitled to > know as much as you do about your partnership understandings"? > What was broke that needed fixing? ?Why have they done this to > us? ?Anyone? > > +=+ So far as 'entitled to know' is concerned, this continues to be > the entitlement in respect of the prior auction just as it was before . > ? ? ? The Beijing minute only reiterates the situation in Law 20F, in > 1997 as in 2007, that you may ask about calls made or available > and not made, in the auction up to the point at which you ask. If > information is missing from the System card enquiry may be made > about it if it falls into these categories. Omissions not relevant in > these terms may be cleared up after the hand is finished. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ I think it's obvious that you should be entitled to any information about opponents methods that might influence your choice of call or play. (And, yes, that includes the meaning of insufficient bids. I don't claim the right to know what an opponent thought the prior biddin was. But I surely think I should be allowed to ask what the relevant opening bid and overcalls shows.) It seems like Grattan's and/or the WBF LC's view differs. Which I find somewhat disappointing and distressing. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 21 10:01:29 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:01:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5BB4AFDBA0F04BEEB3947208B42559FA@Mildred> References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> <4ADDD7DA.7090105@skynet.be> <5BB4AFDBA0F04BEEB3947208B42559FA@Mildred> Message-ID: <4ADEBFD9.3040300@skynet.be> No, Grattan, you could do more about it. See below: Grattan wrote: > >> This answer tells us that NBOs who fail to have regulations like this >> have only themselves to blame if a player does something that in some >> other country (or a WBF tournament) is considered illegal. Why does the >> WBF not put these regulations into the laws, so that we are not obliged >> to write thousands of regulations ourselves? >> >> I find the regulation above quite correct, and a solution to the problem >> about the Capeletti 2Di - but this regulation does not exist in Belgium. >> Why? >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ In an ideal world, perhaps, there would be uniform treatment > of such things. But in a world where different authorities have their > different ideas only so much can be achieved. Are there really NBOs that have different ideas about a regulation about when a player is allowed to watch a SC? And if there are, is there any reason why the WBF should not write a global regulation, allowing the NBO that wishes to do so to change it? As it stands, there are legal loopholes all over the world, and the WBF does nothing to plug those holes. > I can only say it like it is. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > You might try to change it! Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 21 10:10:13 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:10:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be><000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no><000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no><000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <7EAF8B42-1A0D-4303-A790-14BB6ADEF00E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4ADEC1E5.7040600@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > > What, oh what, I keep asking, was wrong with "they're entitled to > know as much as you do about your partnership understandings"? > What was broke that needed fixing? Why have they done this to > us? Anyone? > > +=+ So far as 'entitled to know' is concerned, this continues to be > the entitlement in respect of the prior auction just as it was before . > The Beijing minute only reiterates the situation in Law 20F, in > 1997 as in 2007, that you may ask about calls made or available > and not made, in the auction up to the point at which you ask. If > information is missing from the System card enquiry may be made > about it if it falls into these categories. Omissions not relevant in > these terms may be cleared up after the hand is finished. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > What is wrong with this stance, Grattan, is that you fail to understand what L20F was all about. L20F comes from a long line of problems with people refusing to answer completely legal questions in the past. It started with "I did not bid 2Cl, so I don't have to answer what 2Cl would have meant" (wrongly of course, under any lawbook). So it was added that one could ask about calls not made. That was then further expanded to the current L20F. But I don't see how, under any reasoning, L20F could ever have been devised as a limitation on things a player was entitled to know. So I really cannot understand why it should be so that a player is not entitled to know, whenever he so pleases, what 2Di over 1NT means in the system they are playing. Or what 5Di as answer to Blackwood means. Furthermore, Grattan, think about this. L40 tells us there should be complete disclosure. L20F, as you interpret it, limits the questions that are askable. But L40B puts no limits (except time) on the thins a player may read on his opponents SC. So to use the limits of L20F (if they exist in the first place) to limit the looking at the SC seems to me not founded in any law or regulation. I am not commenting on the trick of trying to find your own system on opponent's SC. That trick can be countered with "memory aids". Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 21 15:15:58 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:15:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <091E610D-9F1F-4286-BB44-6B9C651030D5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8E62796E-30EB-4143-B9FD-1042C606AD2C@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:20:27 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Oct 16, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> LHO opens 1NT, partner overcalls 2Di. That's Capelletti, but you >>> can't >>> remember what it means. (You are playing two hands with this >>> partner and >>> hoped it wouldn't come up.) When it is your turn to bid, you look >>> at the >>> opponent's convention card. Fortunately, for you, they are playing >>> Capelletti. However, they have not filled in what the bids mean for >>> Capelletti, which is required in ACBL-land. >>> >>> Can you call the director? Can you just ask them what their 2Di >>> overcall >>> of 1NT would mean? >> >> Technical legality aside, you are clearly walking a fine ethical line >> here. I'm not at all sure that it was ethical to consult their CC in >> the first place. The function of the CC is to serve as an aid to >> disclosure, but here you have no interest whatsoever in their >> methods, but rather in your own. You are attempting to use their CC >> as a memory aid, clearly violating the spirit, if perhaps not the >> letter, of L40C3(a). You might be able to get this past a Secretary- >> Bird director, but you should know better than to try. > > Isn't everything you said obvious? I surely hope so. > Except for agreeing that this unsavory > tactic is technically legal My bad. By "technical legality aside" I did not mean to suggest that I believe it to be legal -- I'll let others here settle that one -- but rather that the question of whether it was or wasn't was irrelevant to the point of my reply. I'll try for less ambiguous phrasing henceforth. > (And a player just needs to get it past a committee. And I agree > with you > that something can be unethical even though it is legal. But I think > Richard takes the opposite position.) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 21 15:26:13 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:26:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no><000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <2AA84CC4DFDB472FB40B34765FDBB704@Mildred> Message-ID: <443F8023-09B4-464D-8E93-192620B7CC9E@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Roger Eymard wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan" > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sven Pran" >> >>> Opponents are entitled to know the intended meaning >>> of an insufficient bid, LHO even before he decides >>> whether or not to accept it as legal (Law 27). >> >> +=+ I had not realized the law said this. I must look >> it up again. But how does the partner know what the >> I-bidder was thinking when he made the insufficient >> bid? > > I can't see how the explanation of an IB (either by IBer's partner > or by > IBer herself if her partner is taken away from the table) could > legally be > something else than "No agreement" (Law 40B6(a)). > When applying Law 27B1(b), the TD can know the intended meaning of > the IB, > but wouldn't be making it known by the NOS giving them extraneous > information? The problem with calling it extraneous information is that in a majority of the cases the NOS will be able to deduce it just from the fact that the conditions of L27B1(b) have been met. So most of the time the director will be effectively forced to provide the information indirectly. Given that, it makes sense to treat it as entitled information and provide it directly, putting all NOSs in this situation on a "level playing field". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 21 15:47:48 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:47:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be><000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no><000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no><000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> Message-ID: <34BAEF04-32C1-476E-BCE5-3DC409F69B6B@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ Law 20F1 was not altered in Beijing. The WBFLC merely > took steps to ensure that it is correctly understood. The WBF > CTD has not changed one iota the manner in which he applies > this law. Well, the Beijing minute is clearly inconsistent with the Kaplan paradigm for regulating full disclosure, so if the law was not altered by it, the Kaplan paradigm must have been abandoned by the WBFLC sometime previously. Since that inconsistency goes to the heart of the debate on the subject, it behooves us to know when, by what action, in what context and for what reason the WBFLC took the decision to abandon the Kaplan paradigm, and at least a statement, hopefully an explanation, of the new guiding general principle or principles with which they replaced it. If the WBFLC has never explicitly rejected the Kaplan paradigm, but insists nevertheless that the Beijing minute did not alter the previously universal interpretation of L20F1, one can only conclude that they did not understand what they were doing when they wrote the minute. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 21 16:23:37 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:23:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <091E610D-9F1F-4286-BB44-6B9C651030D5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6EA991C9-74D0-4E1D-93CD-A7AB2021ACAF@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:34:30 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > >> +=+ You are entitled to ask for "an explanation of the opponents' >> prior auction" and that is defined as "an explanation only of calls >> actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and >> any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice >> of action among the foregoing". >> They have had no opportunity in the auction to use the >> Capelletti convention. So where does the idea of asking about >> it under Law 20F1 enter the equation? > > Right, L20F1 does not allow me to ask about an insufficient bid or > the 5 > Di bid mentioned in Beijing (intended as a Blackwood response though > having a different meaning according to the system). > > The question is if L40 (L40A1(b)? L40B6?) gives players the right > to ask > about any system understanding. Some people, as near as I can tell, > think > that, though I can't find an example right now. > > (I see L40B6(a) as directing that explanation be limited by L20F1.) > > So that was the purpose of that question. Thanks. Back on my favorite hobby-horse, I start by noting that the Kaplan paradigm for full disclosure "gives players the right to ask about any system understanding". L40A1(b) *is* the Kaplan paradigm: the first sentence expresses Kaplan's desired, if impossible to achieve, ideal (note "has a duty", not "is required"), and the second sentence instructs RAs to implement it as best as they can within the bounds of practicality. Nothing in the second sentence limits the scope of the first. L20F1, however, explicitly rejects the Kaplan paradigm, and contradicts the requirements of L40A1(b) -- the opponents "have a duty" to provide the answer to your question unasked, but may refuse to provide it if asked. When the approach to updating the law is to focus on individual laws piecemeal in response to specific perceived problems, revising them without thorough consideration of the larger context, rather than treating TFLB as an integrated body of work embodying general principles that ensure consistency throughout, which would mean addressing all of it at each scheduled revision, it is inevitable that contradictions will creep in when some laws are changed while others are ignored. This is not the first such case this forum has noted. > The next question is, what happens if you want to know information > that > you are not entitled to (by L20F1), and the opponents card is > incomplete > or incorrect/misleading? Fortunately IMO, the Kaplan paradigm does not provide relief to the player in Bob's original scenario. He is entitled by it to obtain and use the knowledge of what the opponents' defensive methods over 1NT are, but is not entitled to the knowledge that those methods go by the name "Cappelletti". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 21 17:00:14 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:00:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> Message-ID: <1A36A116-B841-479E-B934-5B3ED4814F58@starpower.net> On Oct 18, 2009, at 6:12 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Sven Pran" > >>> In the example I was giving, the player wanted to know the >>> meaning of a >> 2Di >>> overcall of 1NT. That's a bid that was not made and could not >>> have been >> made. >> >> And what makes you so sure that the bid was not a 2D bid over 1NT? >> >> Yes, I know that 2NT was the actual previous call, but what do you >> think >> the >> 2D bidder was bidding over? >> >> I am pretty confident it was a 2D bid over 1NT, and that is the call >> opponents are entitled to get explained the meaning of. > > +=+ I really must clear my brain about this. I am being asked to > accept that an opponent has bid 2D over my 2NT bid and, since > the opponents have no partnership understanding about such bid, > I am entitled to ask instead, during the auction, about the meaning > of a bid that did not occur and which was not available to the > opponent? Is this the suggestion? > The case made seems to be that the information should be > on the System Card, but it is not and I did not enquire about the > omission before commencing play against these opponents. So > I want to raise that issue in the middle of the hand about a call > that has not occurred. > Is that the proposition? Yes. L40A1(b) establishes "a duty to make available", not "a duty to enquire". That that "duty" was not fulfilled is the fault of the IBer's side, not of the NOS. To restore equity, they need only rectify the omission before it has any effect on the deal, which, fortunately for them, they can do by just *answering the damned question*. Did the authors of the laws really intend to create a situation in which you are entitled to some particular piece of information only if you request it at the first possible opportunity? Is it really necessary, to protect one's rights, to enquire about every conceivably possible omission from the opponent's CC before commencing play? Should doing so even be permitted? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 21 17:21:24 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:21:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> Message-ID: <48E40FCC-5886-4898-80C9-00266FE08A85@starpower.net> On Oct 18, 2009, at 6:57 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Sven Pran" > >>> Yes, I know that 2NT was the actual previous call, but >>> what do you think the 2D bidder was bidding over? >> >> I am pretty confident it was a 2D bid over 1NT, and >> that is the call opponents are entitled to get explained >> the meaning of. > > +=+ Is it impossible he failed to realize the NT bid had > been made and he was calling over some prior call? Or > was it possible he thought he was opening the bidding? > Or could his wayward brain have told him he was > responding to some action or intervention by his partner? > How much do we *know* about the circumstances > underlying this insufficient bid? The TD must know all, in order to make a correct ruling per L27B. "We" know as much as we can deduce from his eventual ruling. The problem is that in many such cases that will be quite a lot, and it doesn't seem fair that the NOS should gain a significant advantage in those particular cases over other NOSs confronted with an identical infraction. Why should whether or not the NOS gets to know what the offender's intention was depend on the answer? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 21 18:13:46 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:13:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> Message-ID: On Oct 18, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The general question is a player's rights when they want > information about > system agreements that they are not entitled to via L20F1 but they > were > entitled to via L40 prior to the auction. Can they ask anyway? Can > they > look at the convention card? Can they complain if the information > isn't on > the convention card? > > Situation 1. Learning the meaning of an intended bid. For example, a > player makes a 5 Di response to 4NT, thinking it was Blackwood when it > really wasn't. Or tries to open 1 Cl when RHO has already opened 1 > Sp. The > opponents want to know the meaning of a bid that did not occur and > could > not have occurred (but that probably did occur in the player's head). > > Situation 2. Learning the meaning of their own bid. A player has > forgotten > his convention and the opponents are playing that convention. He asks > about a hypothetical auction in which the opponents use the > convention. > > Answer. It seems to be perfectly legal, although reprehensible, to > look at > the opponent's card to find out the meaning of one's own bids. > Should this > be fixed? > > A easy and logical fix is to say that player's may look at the > opponent's > convention card only to get information they are entitled to as in > L20F1. > However, this will disallow looking at the convention card in > Situation 1. > I suspect not everyone would like that. > > It does not work to say that looking at the opponent's convention > card is > an illegal memory aid. > > Other situations are looking at the opponent's card to see: (1) if > partner's bid is alertable; (2) to estimate the opponent's skill; > (3) to > discover the meaning of a possible future bid by the opponents. That last hadn't occurred to me, but seems almost determinative. I am considering making a preemptive bid, and would wish to risk doing so if a double of it by LHO would be negative or "cards" but not if LHO would be able to double for penalty. Under the Beijing minute, as Grattan has explained it, since LHO's double of my not-yet- bid preempt is neither a call actually made nor an available alternative to a call already made, I am not entitled to find out what my opponents' agreements are with respect to LHO's prospective double. Until the current discussion of the subject arose on BLML, it would not have occurred to me or any of the working TDs I know that the law did not entitle me to this knowledge, notwithstanding Grattan's insistence that the Beijing minute was merely an interpretation rather than a substantive change in the law. The Beijing minute means that taking a quick glance at the opponents' CC in this situation to ascertain whether or how high they play negative doubles is cheating. This will come as rather shocking news to anyone unfamiliar with the WBFLC's actions in Beijing. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 21 18:25:30 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:25:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <4ADBA189.9050400@consolidated.net> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <4ADBA189.9050400@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <8BE510ED-B389-4014-B4B2-0D9D0BF02138@starpower.net> On Oct 18, 2009, at 7:15 PM, Robert Park wrote: > (Surely you would > not cast aspersions at someone for following the rules.) I would, and do, when someone wiggles his way through a loophole in the literal law knowing full well that he is violating it in spirit. For example, I would, and do, cast aspersions at the Wall Street bankers who have awarded themselves billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money as perfectly legal performance bonuses. So have something like 3/4 of Americans, including the President. Is there something wrong with that? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 21 18:23:07 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:23:07 -0700 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP><4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> <001201ca5198$89fe6570$9dfb3050$@com> Message-ID: <4329B2EA73F24028823B364D483C3025@MARVLAPTOP> "Arguments over grammar are often as fierce as those over IBM vs MAC, and as fruitless as Coke versus Pepsi and boxers vs briefs." -- Jack Lynch "The subjunctive mood is in its death throes, and the best thing to do is to put it out of its misery as soon as possible." -- W. Somerset Maughm > > [DALB] > > This is simply wrong (recall that Marvin speaks American, not > English). > > "If the infraction was accidental" means "there is doubt as to > whether the infraction was accidental, but assuming that it was, > then..." Yes, of course. > > "If the infraction were accidental" means "the infraction was in > fact deliberate, but if we assume that it was not, then..." I was taught that "If the infraction *had been* accidental" is the correct form for this meaning. Otherwise, you have the same form for present and past subjunctive, confusing: He *is* guilty. If he were innocent... He *was* guilty. If he were innocent... That does not make for clear language... > > Herman's use of the subjunctive is therefore quite correct. If > Marvin was able to speak English, he has now forgotten how to do > so; if Marvin were able to speak English, he would not have raised > the question in the first place. Is that last sentence supposed to contradict my understanding of the language? Both clauses are correct in my view. The first is past indicative (expressing a presumed fact), the second is present subjunctive (condition contrary to fact) . I am not talking about those usages. Marv's English: The wandering pilgrim entered an unknown kingdom. He didn't know whether the monarch WAS a king or a queen. If it WAS (or were to be) a king, then... Note the infinitive following the subjunctive verb in the parenthesized version. I didn't know if he WAS telling the truth or not. If he WAS, then....If he WASN'T, then... If I WAS drunk last night, I'm sorry. Had I been sober... DALB, Jeff Rubens, and schoolmarm English: He didn't know if the monarch WERE a king or a queen. If it WERE a king, then.... I didn't know if he WERE telling the truth or not. If he WERE then,... If he WEREN'T, then... If I WERE drunk last night, I'm sorry. WERE I sober... (yuk!) Anyway, this is evidently a difference between British and American usage. I would never say DALB is wrong, I have too much respect for him. Example from subjunctives.com: The divergence of usage in Britain and American can result in the same sentence having different meanings. If the former say "They insisted he went to chapel every day," it usually means he was required to go daily. In American it means he went daily, perhaps refuting the contrary. To signify an obligation to go daily, an American would say 'They insisted he go to chapel every day." Another point is that good writers and speakers have for many years been dropping the subjunctive whenever the indicative conforms with near-universal usage. If I be wrong, sorry. If Herman wants to emulate the British in his writing, that's fine and I apoligize for saying he was wrong. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 21 20:35:51 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:35:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Yahoo Serious In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7DD798DB-EAF9-468F-9177-E85BD7F93F95@starpower.net> On Oct 19, 2009, at 1:41 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Appendix, EBU Law and Ethics Committee minutes, 24th September 2009: > > 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: > > 1. A wild or gambling action may be related to the infraction. > > 2. 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. Thanks to Richard for posting this. It is a superb piece of work. The EBU L&EC apparently looks to common sense and the spirit of the law for its interpretations, unlike other bodies (who shall go nameless here) that seem far too concerned with defending its letter down to the obviously unintended consequences. They are to be congratulated. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 21 20:46:17 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:46:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <000601ca4fde$fd652a00$f82f7e00$@no> <5E90CCD3A4BE4ED3AFC7FF089BF0713C@Mildred> <4ADB7FCB.5040805@nhcc.net> <4ADBA1F0.8000902@consolidated.net> Message-ID: On Oct 19, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:17:04 -0400, Robert Park > > wrote: > >> Grattan wrote: >> >>> +=+ If you have forgotten your defence to a 1NT opener >>> the law says that you are not emtitled during the auction >>> and play periods to *any* aids to your memory. >> >> Hmmmm...What about counting on your fingers? > > A mnemonic is also a memory aid. From my dictionary: 1. Aiding or > designed > to aid the memory. > > I freely confess to using the following aid to my memory, > calculation, and > technique. I have memorized the combinations that add to 13. Then I > do not > have to add or subtract when I count suits, freeing my mind for other > tasks such as remembering and calculating. By some definitions, the learned knowledge of how to add could be considered "an aid to calculation". If a bridge teacher teaches her beginners "cars don't have silly names" (clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades, notrump), do they forever after violate L40C3(a)? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 21 21:00:14 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:00:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fafiated In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 19, 2009, at 8:57 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps (Knockout Teams) > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Richard > 1D (1) 3C (2) Dble(3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H (4) Pass > ? > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major. Since East-West's > system uses a strong 1C, West held maximum values for their > opening > bid of 1D. > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Break in tempo > > You, West, hold > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > Question 1: Does East's break in tempo demonstrably suggest that 6H > will > be a more successful call than Pass? No. IMHO. > If the answer to Question 1 is Yes, then -> > > Question 2: Would 6H be the only logical alternative for your > "uniquely > idiotic" class of player? :-) :-) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Oct 21 21:00:45 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:00:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <8BE510ED-B389-4014-B4B2-0D9D0BF02138@starpower.net> References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no> <000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no> <5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <4ADBA189.9050400@consolidated.net> <8BE510ED-B389-4014-B4B2-0D9D0BF02138@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4ADF5A5D.1010208@consolidated.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 18, 2009, at 7:15 PM, Robert Park wrote: > > >> (Surely you would >> not cast aspersions at someone for following the rules.) >> > > I would, and do, when someone wiggles his way through a loophole in > the literal law knowing full well that he is violating it in spirit. > > For example, I would, and do, cast aspersions at the Wall Street > bankers who have awarded themselves billions of dollars of American > taxpayers' money as perfectly legal performance bonuses. So have > something like 3/4 of Americans, including the President. Is there > something wrong with that? > > > Isn't this view somewhat analogous to shooting messengers rather than the ones who send the message? Seems to me the more honorable action would be to work to get the rules/laws changed, rather than denigrating those who follow the laws. To do otherwise is to practice elitism. --rep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091021/bc467834/attachment-0001.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Oct 21 21:11:27 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:11:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar In-Reply-To: <4329B2EA73F24028823B364D483C3025@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP><4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> <001201ca5198$89fe6570$9dfb3050$@com> <4329B2EA73F24028823B364D483C3025@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000001ca5282$4a403b30$dec0b190$@com> [MF] DALB, Jeff Rubens, and schoolmarm English: He didn't know if the monarch WERE a king or a queen. If it WERE a king, then.... [DALB] That may be how Jeff Rubens speaks; it is not what I would say. I would say this: "Because he spoke no French, he did not know if the card his opponent played was the king or the jack. He guessed to play the queen, which would have been right if his opponent's card were the jack, but..." [MF] I didn't know if he WERE telling the truth or not. If he WERE then,... If he WEREN'T, then... [DALB] Again, I do not recognise this usage; it is quite wrong, and I am very surprised to learn that Rubens might use it - I hold his writing in very high regard. Where there is doubt about a state of affairs that may or may not have existed in the past, one says "I did not know if he was telling the truth when he said that Valet meant King". Where one speaks of a state of affairs that did not exist in the past but that might have done, one says "If he were telling the truth, he would not have said that Roi meant Jack". Marvin is quite right to draw attention to and perhaps to prefer the use of "had been" rather than "were", but the latter is not an error. In the next example, though: [MF] If I WERE drunk last night, I'm sorry. WERE I sober... (yuk!) [DALB] (Yuk indeed.) "If I was drunk last night, I'm sorry. Had I been sober..." is clearly preferable to "Were I sober" because the latter could convey the impression that whatever his state last night, the speaker is drunk now. [MF] The divergence of usage in Britain and American can result in the same sentence having different meanings. If the former say "They insisted he went to chapel every day," it usually means he was required to go daily. In American it means he went daily, perhaps refuting the contrary. To signify an obligation to go daily, an American would say 'They insisted he go to chapel every day." [DALB] Interesting example, and a good illustration of why the subjunctive is necessary to avoid ambiguity. But I am a Briton, and if I heard "They insisted he went to chapel every day", I would imagine that the speaker might have prefaced the words with "I remarked to his friends that X seemed somewhat impious, but they insisted [that] he went to chapel every day". If I wished to convey that X was required by his parents to accompany them in their devotions, it would not occur to me to use the former locution; instead, I would say (apparently with the Americans) that "they insisted he [should] go to chapel every day". David Burn London, England From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 22 00:40:34 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:40:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <7EAF8B42-1A0D-4303-A790-14BB6ADEF00E@starpower.net> References: <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <7EAF8B42-1A0D-4303-A790-14BB6ADEF00E@starpower.net> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Harald Skj?ran" Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 01:51 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights > 2009/10/21 Grattan : >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> "Of that there is no manner of doubt - >> No probable, possible shadow of doubt - >> No possible doubt whatever." >> 'The Gondoliers' >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Landau" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:44 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights >> >> >>>> >> I would imagine so. They can certainly look at the CC, and there's >> no law against perusing it -- whether you look can't depend entirely >> on what you hope to find -- and if it's improperly filled out they >> would seem to have cause to bring this to the TD's attention entirely >> apart from the business of disclosure with regard to the current >> auction. >> >> But that would mean that, from a practical standpoint, the CC is now >> serving an accidental purpose for which it was never intended: to >> regulate which specific explanations to which the opponents are not >> entitled to under L20F1 they are nevertheless entitled to under the >> CC regulations. Because, as dumb as that sounds, either that's what >> they do, or we need to find a way to determine what a player's >> motivation was every time one picks up an opponent's CC. >> >> Is this dumb, or stupid, or what? Unfortunately, it's just the tip >> of the iceberg of the hellish problems that will be caused as people >> learn of the WBF's entirely new doctrine of less-than-full >> disclosure, at least if they can bring themselves to believe it. I >> continue to be convinced, Grattan's reassurances to the contrary >> notwithstanding, that the folks who wrote the Beijing minute really >> did not entirely understand what they were doing or what the >> consequences might be. >> >> What, oh what, I keep asking, was wrong with "they're entitled to >> know as much as you do about your partnership understandings"? >> What was broke that needed fixing? Why have they done this to >> us? Anyone? >> >> +=+ So far as 'entitled to know' is concerned, this continues to be >> the entitlement in respect of the prior auction just as it was before . >> The Beijing minute only reiterates the situation in Law 20F, in >> 1997 as in 2007, that you may ask about calls made or available >> and not made, in the auction up to the point at which you ask. If >> information is missing from the System card enquiry may be made >> about it if it falls into these categories. Omissions not relevant in >> these terms may be cleared up after the hand is finished. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I think it's obvious that you should be entitled to any information > about opponents methods that might influence your choice of call or > play. Constructs such as this suggest that L20/40 establishes the game in force is that of poker without the dangers inherent of poker. I have reason to suspect, conceivably to the point of believing, that L20/40 make precisely such provision. Consequently, I believe that those provisions place an unconscionable burden upon players. When lawmakers contemplated the use of 'the question' and 'its answer' it is apparent that they got it wrong. To get it right they ought to have arrived at the realization that as far as disclosure during a hand is concerned questions should not be used, yet under certain circumstances questions may, or will, be necessary. There just is no other way to satisfactorily resolve the conflict between disclosure and the punitive aftermath from UI that arises once a question is voiced. I cannot help but wonder what the lawmakers were believing when they contemplated the concept of how much is to be available to the opponents. My belief is that they thought they might miss something unless they required infinity. Which lends to the possibility that the lawmakers did not feel the need to satisfy the fundamental principle of lawmaking- it is the duty of the lawmakers to make the hard choices and do so wisely. Otherwise, instead of trying to answer the question ?How much is enough?? they would have set out to answer ?How little is enough?? regards roger pewick > (And, yes, that includes the meaning of insufficient bids. I > don't claim the right to know what an opponent thought the prior > biddin was. But I surely think I should be allowed to ask what the > relevant opening bid and overcalls shows.) It seems like Grattan's > and/or the WBF LC's view differs. Which I find somewhat disappointing > and distressing. > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 22 04:32:55 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:32:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <4AD73AA4.7060503@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AD73AA4.7060503@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4ADFC457.8030402@nhcc.net> > From: Robert Frick > Short: The law apparently does not require players to explain the > inferences from bids that could be made later in the auction. Robert has raised some interesting general questions, but his specific examples are flawed. In the above situation, for example, it would in general be impossible to explain future bids without knowing the meaning of intervening bids by the opponents. > The Situation You Know: When a Precision player opens 1Di, we know that > they can't explain their bid as "opening hand with no other opening bid." Some of them, alas, will offer little more than this, but I agree it's illegal. > the opponents don't have to piece together the > opponents' entire system to figure out what 1Di means -- the people > playing the system do that for them. Right. The players should delineate the set of hands that open 1D. > For "Forcing": It seems that the analogous thing does NOT happen for > describing a bid as forcing. Correct. To be fair, this is far from the only kind of bid that causes problems. Relays, in particular, are very hard to describe. (Blackwood and Stayman are perhaps the most familiar examples.) > Consider your ordinary Precision 1C, and > Richard's 1C which seems about the same. I, as poor opponent, want to know > if that bid is forcing. As stated elsewhere in the thread, you are entitled to a complete description of the 1C bid, but you aren't entitled to know the upcoming response system. > Does that mean it can't be passed? The answer to this may well depend on the definition of your own pass. If it includes strong hands, responder is entitled to take that into account when deciding whether to pass or not. > It turns out the the probability is much less in Richard's system, because > they show very strong bids with the 1H rebid, not with a jump. Am I > entitled to this information? As I read the law, I am not. Exactly. The exception would be if the RA requires the information on the System Card, but even then they could change methods if your side's passes are unusual. And the opponents are entitled to know what your pass over 1C means (after the 1C bid but before the response). Someone else mentioned the resolution to Robert's other question: > LHO opens 1NT, partner overcalls 2Di. That's Capelletti, but you can't > remember what it means. In the ACBL at least, the opponents' SC should show the meaning of their 2D overcall of 1NT, but it shouldn't show the name of the convention. If it happens to do so, then I don't see why you shouldn't use the information. If authorities want to make rules that it's OK to look at a SC for some purposes but not others, they better issue mind-reading caps to all their Directors. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 22 04:42:38 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:42:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: What's the problem? In-Reply-To: <4AD73D7E.40403@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AD73D7E.40403@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4ADFC69E.8020006@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > You hold K - Axxx - 10xxx - xxxx and the bidding goes : > 1C pass 1NT 2D > What does partner hold ? Diamonds ? Where are the spades ? > > My guess was that he didn't see the opening and bid an Astro-like 2D > over the opening 1NT. This is a very interesting question. The problem is that the information comes partly from your agreements -- which opponents used to be entitled to know -- and partly from your own hand -- which they are not entitled to know. > Now, do you think I should have alerted his intended meaning ? Given that you know (or guess it) it only from your own hand, I don't see why. Nevertheless, there are some problems here. Presumably you know your partner's tendency to misbid -- I think the opponents are entitled in principle to know that too, but many authorities disagree with me. Until 2007, the opponents were without question entitled to know the meaning of your 2D over an opening 1NT, but that's now in doubt, "fully and freely available" having been deleted from TFLB. I'm afraid I don't see any good answer, but pretending the problem doesn't exist does not help. Incidentally, partner will also have a problem when he realizes what he's done. Even aside from possible UI, he won't know whether your bids are meant to be over a natural 2D or over the hand you guess he holds. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Oct 22 04:48:44 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:48:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <4ADF2CAA.7060009@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4ADF2CAA.7060009@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4ADFC80C.9020609@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > The TD must know all, in order to make a correct ruling per L27B. As I keep repeating, this is only for jurisdictions where Max Bavin's definition of "correct ruling" is official. > "We" know as much as we can deduce from his eventual ruling. The > problem is that in many such cases that will be quite a lot, and it > doesn't seem fair that the NOS should gain a significant advantage in > those particular cases over other NOSs confronted with an identical > infraction. If the infraction is identical, why would the ruling or the inferences from it be different at different tables? If you mean that for some IBs it will be easy to guess IB-er's intent, but for others (different bids in different auctions) it will be hard, why is that a problem? Some legal bids show very specific hands; others are wide-ranging. (Think of different styles of preempt, for example.) The problems opponents face are different, but that's part of the game. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 22 04:24:42 2009 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:24:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP><4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> <001201ca5198$89fe6570$9dfb3050$@com><4329B2EA73F24028823B364D483C3025@MARVLAPTOP> <000001ca5282$4a403b30$dec0b190$@com> Message-ID: <0DCACA5DE45F4E4A9C3777CCB7048722@stefanie> > [DALB] > > But I am a Briton, and if I heard "They > insisted he went to chapel every day", I would imagine that the speaker > might have prefaced the words with "I remarked to his friends that X > seemed > somewhat impious, but they insisted [that] he went to chapel every day". > If > I wished to convey that X was required by his parents to accompany them in > their devotions, it would not occur to me to use the former locution; > instead, I would say (apparently with the Americans) that "they insisted > he > [should] go to chapel every day". Maybe you would, but as an American living in the UK, I can assure you that I have many times heard the usage you refute, and have always found it jarring. The first time I heard it, though, was before I moved here. It was in a James Bond movie... maybe another American here noticed it and thought it was strange. Stefanie Rohan London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 22 11:18:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:18:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no><000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no><5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <1A36A116-B841-479E-B934-5B3ED4814F58@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights >>> > > Did the authors of the laws really intend to create a > situation in which you are entitled to some particular > piece of information only if you request it at the first > possible opportunity? > +=+ It is over 12 years now since the WBFLC took back to its corporate self the exclusive right to issue authoritative statements as to its intentions and interpretations. So I can only speak as to my own view of the subject. I believe that the intention is to confine questioning during the auction and play solely to matters that have become relevant as the consequence of what has occurred on the board. As I understand the law, relevance is considered to be what the questioner needs to know about the situation reached in order to decide upon his next action, and the Beijing minute was simply a clarification of this. If there is information missing from the card that is not relevant in the foregoing terms the time to rectify the omission is not in the middle of a board. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 22 12:31:19 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:31:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no><000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no><5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <1A36A116-B841-479E-B934-5B3ED4814F58@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4AE03477.2060208@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > >> Did the authors of the laws really intend to create a >> situation in which you are entitled to some particular >> piece of information only if you request it at the first >> possible opportunity? >> > +=+ It is over 12 years now since the WBFLC took back > to its corporate self the exclusive right to issue authoritative > statements as to its intentions and interpretations. So I can > only speak as to my own view of the subject. I believe that > the intention is to confine questioning during the auction and > play solely to matters that have become relevant as the > consequence of what has occurred on the board. As I > understand the law, relevance is considered to be what the > questioner needs to know about the situation reached in > order to decide upon his next action, and the Beijing minute > was simply a clarification of this. > If there is information missing from the card that is not > relevant in the foregoing terms the time to rectify the omission > is not in the middle of a board. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I understand this sentiment, but I question its wisdom. Surely it is necessary, for a pleasant and clean game, to limit questions during the auction to things that are relevant. In that sense L20F serves a purpose. But when we see a number of examples being given of things that are (in the opinion of many) relevant, and it turns out that questions about them cannot, by L20F, be asked anyway, then it seems that the WBFLC have overshot their target. If, OTOH, we find that we don't need L20 at all in order to be able to ban questions that are irrelevant (by using laws about memory aids, harrassment, time wasting, and UI) then it seems as if L20F is either unwisely added to the FLB, or misinterpreted. Considering that I do believe L20F serves a purpose in showing reluctant answerers that some questions may be asked (and thus must be answered), I believe it is the latter. I urge the WBFLC once more to change their interpretation of L20F. L20F should serve as a non-exhaustive list of the sort of things a player is allowed to ask. If he needs other things as well, he is also allowed to ask about those. The meaning of 2Di (intended over 1NT but actually over 2NT) should serve as a clear example of something which the new interpretation needlessly limits. Just ask yourself the following question. At one table, the partner of the 2NT bidder, needing to decide whether to accept 2Di, looks at the SC (at his own risk) and discovers that 2Di over 1NT is described as "a single 6-card Major". At another table, a player in the same situation finds "MultiLandy". Suppose this last mention is acceptable by the standards of the NBO, surely the WBFLC will not rule against a player who does not know what MultiLandy means and wants to ask what it is? Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 22 13:22:31 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:22:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar In-Reply-To: <0DCACA5DE45F4E4A9C3777CCB7048722@stefanie> References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP><4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> <001201ca5198$89fe6570$9dfb3050$@com><4329B2EA73F24028823B364D483C3025@MARVLAPTOP> <000001ca5282$4a403b30$dec0b190$@com> <0DCACA5DE45F4E4A9C3777CCB7048722@stefanie> Message-ID: <000001ca5309$f293e430$d7bbac90$@com> [SR] {DALB But I am a Briton, and if I heard "They insisted he went to chapel every day", I would imagine that the speaker might have prefaced the words with "I remarked to his friends that X seemed somewhat impious, but they insisted [that] he went to chapel every day". If I wished to convey that X was required by his parents to accompany them in their devotions, it would not occur to me to use the former locution; instead, I would say (apparently with the Americans) that "they insisted he [should] go to chapel every day".} Maybe you would, but as an American living in the UK, I can assure you that I have many times heard the usage you refute, and have always found it jarring. [DALB] Of course, no normal person would say either of the above. Instead, they would say in the first case "His friends told me that he went to chapel every day" and in the second "His parents made him go to chapel every day". But this is not a mailing list for normal people; daily we grapple with pieces of prose whose meaning is utterly opaque, while the people who wrote it won't tell us what it means (either because they are dead, or because they do not know, or both). David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 22 15:44:45 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:44:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4ADDD0E4.40509@ulb.ac.be> References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred><7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> <4ADDD0E4.40509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Oct 20, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > So if the card is written e.g. (correctly IMHO) "4C/D : Namyats = > strong > 4-bid in corresponding major" and by looking at it you're remembered > what Namyats (that you do use) means, it was illegal help. IMHO a correctly written CC would say, "4C/D = strong 4-bid in corresponding major" (or, shorter and better, "4C/D = strong 4-bid in H/S"). Adding "Namyats" is superfluous at best, could conceivably confuse or mislead, and is discouraged by the ACBL. If nothing else, omitting it avoids the problem being discussed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 22 16:07:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:07:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. Message-ID: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> <4ADDD7DA.7090105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <38C42277-B0E7-4427-AF6E-9495EBEDCE93@starpower.net> On Oct 20, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > This is the kind of answer by Grattan (and the WBF) that I dislike: > > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ This last statement is based upon a wrong assumption The use >> of the >> system card is regulated by the Regulating Authority. See Law 40B2 >> (a). >> The WBF regulation specifies that the use of the System >> card is for >> disclosure of the partnership's conventions and treatments. No >> other use >> is authorized. Bear in mind (see minute above) that positive >> authorization >> is needed for any other use Consult rhe regulations for the >> tournaments >> in which you play, and if they are unclear ask the Regulating >> Authority to >> clarify. > > This answer tells us that NBOs who fail to have regulations like this > have only themselves to blame if a player does something that in some > other country (or a WBF tournament) is considered illegal. Why does > the > WBF not put these regulations into the laws, so that we are not > obliged > to write thousands of regulations ourselves? > > I find the regulation above quite correct, and a solution to the > problem > about the Capeletti 2Di - but this regulation does not exist in > Belgium. > Why? The ACBL has a totally different solution to the problem: You are required to describe your conventions on your CC. Names are not descriptions, and the names of conventions, other than those printed on the CC (Stayman, Jacoby (transfers), Texas, Gerber, also Blackwood, assumed original if not specified otherwise) do not belong there. There is no reason to use or include the name "Cappelletti" in the description of your defense to 1NT openings, and you should avoid doing so. In the ACBL, you are entitled to know what your opponents' methods are. You are not entitled to know whose name they refer to them by. Is this a point in favor of the WBF's "different ways for different RAs" approach? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 22 16:31:15 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:31:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP><4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> <001201ca5198$89fe6570$9dfb3050$@com><4329B2EA73F24028823B364D483C3025@MARVLAPTOP> <000001ca5282$4a403b30$dec0b190$@com><0DCACA5DE45F4E4A9C3777CCB7048722@stefanie> <000001ca5309$f293e430$d7bbac90$@com> Message-ID: <062881F0BF2744479ECE1413ED0EAC63@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] English Grammar > daily we grapple with pieces of prose whose meaning is utterly opaque, while the people who wrote it won't tell us what it means (either because they are dead, or because they do not know, or both). > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Some faiths teach that those who are dead do know. +=+ From adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 22 16:51:04 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:51:04 -0700 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:31:15 BST." <062881F0BF2744479ECE1413ED0EAC63@Mildred> Message-ID: <200910221440.HAA19573@mailhub.irvine.com> > daily we grapple with pieces of prose whose meaning is > utterly opaque, while the people who wrote it won't tell > us what it means (either because they are dead, or because > they do not know, or both). > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > +=+ Some faiths teach that those who are dead do know. +=+ Yes, and if we went to chapel every day, we would have known that. Or "If we had gone to chapel every day, we would know that". Or "Had we gone to chapel every day..." .... or is it, "had we have gone to chapel ..." ... oh, never mind. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 22 16:59:24 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:59:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be><000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no><000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no><000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <7EAF8B42-1A0D-4303-A790-14BB6ADEF00E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Oct 20, 2009, at 6:54 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > > I would imagine so. They can certainly look at the CC, and there's > no law against perusing it -- whether you look can't depend entirely > on what you hope to find -- and if it's improperly filled out they > would seem to have cause to bring this to the TD's attention entirely > apart from the business of disclosure with regard to the current > auction. > > But that would mean that, from a practical standpoint, the CC is now > serving an accidental purpose for which it was never intended: to > regulate which specific explanations to which the opponents are not > entitled to under L20F1 they are nevertheless entitled to under the > CC regulations. Because, as dumb as that sounds, either that's what > they do, or we need to find a way to determine what a player's > motivation was every time one picks up an opponent's CC. > > Is this dumb, or stupid, or what? Unfortunately, it's just the tip > of the iceberg of the hellish problems that will be caused as people > learn of the WBF's entirely new doctrine of less-than-full > disclosure, at least if they can bring themselves to believe it. I > continue to be convinced, Grattan's reassurances to the contrary > notwithstanding, that the folks who wrote the Beijing minute really > did not entirely understand what they were doing or what the > consequences might be. > > What, oh what, I keep asking, was wrong with "they're entitled to > know as much as you do about your partnership understandings"? > What was broke that needed fixing? Why have they done this to > us? Anyone? > > +=+ So far as 'entitled to know' is concerned, this continues to be > the entitlement in respect of the prior auction just as it was > before . > The Beijing minute only reiterates the situation in Law 20F, in > 1997 as in 2007, that you may ask about calls made or available > and not made, in the auction up to the point at which you ask. If > information is missing from the System card enquiry may be made > about it if it falls into these categories. Omissions not relevant in > these terms may be cleared up after the hand is finished. We know that Edgar Kaplan, in the early 1970s IIRC, stated the fundamental principles from which, he believed, all of the laws, regulations and protocols regarding disclosure should be derived (what I've been calling the "Kaplan doctrine"). Our whole approach to disclosure -- e.g. alerts, announcements, Q&A protocols, the distinction between MI and misbid -- was derived from Mr. Kaplan's principles, which we know were reflected in the contemporaneous laws because Mr. Kaplan wrote them himself. Here are my questions for Grattan: By what action did the WBFLC first abandon (or override, or choose to make exceptions to, whatever) the Kaplan doctrine? If, as Grattan asserts, this was not done by the folks who wrote the Beijing minute last year, then who did do it, and when? Is there anything in the record of that action, or in the minutes of the meeting at which it was taken, to suggest that the WBFLC discussed, or noted, or was aware of, the fact that that action constituted abandonment of the Kaplan doctrine? If so, what arguments were made or what reasons given for doing so? Was there any discussion of or statement regarding what new fundamental general principle or principles would or might replace it? The Kaplan doctrine at one time served as a guideline for the development of all of our laws and regulations on disclosure: does any such guideline currently exist? If not, I stand by my assertion that whatever body took the original action did not entirely understand what they were doing. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 22 17:33:35 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:33:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <38C42277-B0E7-4427-AF6E-9495EBEDCE93@starpower.net> References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> <4ADDD7DA.7090105@skynet.be> <38C42277-B0E7-4427-AF6E-9495EBEDCE93@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6f0cd81b1194d5e3dede4148587838dc.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > On Oct 20, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> This is the kind of answer by Grattan (and the WBF) that I dislike: >> >> Grattan wrote: >> >>> +=+ This last statement is based upon a wrong assumption The use >>> of the >>> system card is regulated by the Regulating Authority. See Law 40B2 >>> (a). >>> The WBF regulation specifies that the use of the System >>> card is for >>> disclosure of the partnership's conventions and treatments. No >>> other use >>> is authorized. Bear in mind (see minute above) that positive >>> authorization >>> is needed for any other use Consult rhe regulations for the >>> tournaments >>> in which you play, and if they are unclear ask the Regulating >>> Authority to >>> clarify. >> >> This answer tells us that NBOs who fail to have regulations like this >> have only themselves to blame if a player does something that in some >> other country (or a WBF tournament) is considered illegal. Why does >> the >> WBF not put these regulations into the laws, so that we are not >> obliged >> to write thousands of regulations ourselves? >> >> I find the regulation above quite correct, and a solution to the >> problem >> about the Capeletti 2Di - but this regulation does not exist in >> Belgium. >> Why? > > The ACBL has a totally different solution to the problem: You are > required to describe your conventions on your CC. Names are not > descriptions, and the names of conventions, other than those printed > on the CC (Stayman, Jacoby (transfers), Texas, Gerber, also > Blackwood, assumed original if not specified otherwise) do not belong > there. There is no reason to use or include the name "Cappelletti" > in the description of your defense to 1NT openings, and you should > avoid doing so. > > In the ACBL, you are entitled to know what your opponents' methods > are. You are not entitled to know whose name they refer to them by. > > Is this a point in favor of the WBF's "different ways for different > RAs" approach? In fact, it is disconcerting to hear a bid explained as "asking for a 5-card major". It is simpler, and much more informative, to hear that it is Puppet Stayman. Similarly, I do not want to hear that a 2NT is a relay, which tells me nothing about what is happening or going to happen. Instead, I want to hear Lebensohl. Same for "Jacoby 2NT". Does the ACBL really say that the opponents do not have to tell me the name of the convention? From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 22 18:08:21 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:08:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. In-Reply-To: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> References: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> Message-ID: <2ec371884f3ec6ec0f2f0fb665a84243.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "I am very good at winkling" > 'Sense and Sensibility'. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > I wrote: > It is over 12 years now since the WBFLC took back > to its corporate self the exclusive right to issue authoritative > statements as to its intentions and interpretations. So I can > only speak as to my own view of the subject. I believe that > the intention is to confine questioning during the auction and > play solely to matters that have become relevant as the > consequence of what has occurred on the board. As I > understand the law, relevance is considered to be what the > questioner needs to know about the situation reached in > order to decide upon his next action, and the Beijing minute > was simply a clarification of this. > If there is information missing from the card that is not > relevant in the foregoing terms the time to rectify the omission > is not in the middle of a board. > ................................................................................ > Unrelated to the above Eric wrote: > I am considering making a pre-emptive bid, and would wish > to risk doing so if a double of it by LHO would be negative > or "cards" but not if LHO would be able to double for penalty. > Under the Beijing minute, as Grattan has explained it, since > LHO's double of my not-yet-bid pre-empt is neither a call > actually made nor an available alternative to a call already > made, I am not entitled to find out what my opponents' > agreements are with respect to LHO's prospective double. > Until the current discussion of the subject arose on BLML, > it would not have occurred to me or any of the working TDs > I know that the law did not entitle me to this knowledge, > notwithstanding Grattan's insistence that the Beijing minute > was merely an interpretation rather than a substantive change > in the law. > > The Beijing minute means that taking a quick glance at the > opponents' CC in this situation to ascertain whether or how > high they play negative doubles is cheating. This will come > as rather shocking news to anyone unfamiliar with the > WBFLC's actions in Beijing. > ................................................................................ > +=+ This contribution from Eric is the first one to arouse > in me a glimmer of interest concerning whether the law does > allow to the player anything he might reasonably need to > know at the point reached in the auction. However, to start > with, I do not understand the suggestion that he is not able > to consult opponent's system card at his turn to call. The > Beijing minute deals only with the asking of questions and > it does not preclude consultation of opponent's system > card as Law 40B2(c)(iii) allows. However, you suggested that players are protect from missing information on a convention card only when they are entitled to the information (as per Law20F1). That wouldn't have been a problem with the 1997 F20, which allow the players to request a full explanation of "relevant calls available but not made". By the time we get to Beijing ("At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made") the entitlement to future bids seems to have disappeared, no doubt accidentally. > En passant it seems to me that were the law to allow > the player to ask about the meaning of a double over the > call he is about to make, he would wish to know also > about the position under Law 40B3. Beyond that there > could be a subject for the Director as to what inferences > his opponents might draw legitimately from the fact that > he has asked the question, and how they might then act. > I shall watch attentively for rabbits if blml ferrets run > the mazy warrens in this ground. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 22 18:34:48 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:34:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <4ADFC457.8030402@nhcc.net> References: <4AD73AA4.7060503@cfa.harvard.edu> <4ADFC457.8030402@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:32 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > From: Robert Frick > >> It turns out the the probability is much less in Richard's system, >> because >> they show very strong bids with the 1H rebid, not with a jump. Am I >> entitled to this information? As I read the law, I am not. > > Exactly. The exception would be if the RA requires the information on > the System Card, but even then they could change methods if your > side's > passes are unusual. And the opponents are entitled to know what your > pass over 1C means (after the 1C bid but before the response). I see nothing whatsoever in TFLB to suggest that what is properly subject to disclosure is in any way dependent on the RA's CC regulations. We can argue about what exactly is properly subject to disclosure, but whatever it is, the CC regs only address "the manner in which this [providing the required disclosure] shall be done" [L40A1(b)]. There is no authority to decide that the "manner in which this shall be done" is "not at all". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 22 18:45:27 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:45:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <4ADFC80C.9020609@nhcc.net> References: <4ADF2CAA.7060009@cfa.harvard.edu> <4ADFC80C.9020609@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <963C598E-29E2-4F63-855A-E2FE5998C2CE@starpower.net> On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:48 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > From: Eric Landau > >> "We" know as much as we can deduce from his eventual ruling. The >> problem is that in many such cases that will be quite a lot, and it >> doesn't seem fair that the NOS should gain a significant advantage in >> those particular cases over other NOSs confronted with an identical >> infraction. > > If the infraction is identical, why would the ruling or the inferences > from it be different at different tables? Because the ruling, and therefore the inferences from it, depend on the OS's methods. > If you mean that for some IBs it will be easy to guess IB-er's intent, > but for others (different bids in different auctions) it will be hard, > why is that a problem? Some legal bids show very specific hands; > others > are wide-ranging. (Think of different styles of preempt, for > example.) > The problems opponents face are different, but that's part of the > game. No, I mean that for identical IBs on identical auctions, whether it will be easy or hard to guess IBer's intent depends on his side's methods. This is a problem because it means that a difference in methods not relevant to the infraction may provide a significant advantage to one OS (and corresponding disadvantage to the corresponding NOS) over another in otherwise identical circumstances. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 22 19:10:38 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:10:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <004601ca4dff$0f83de20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4AD84995.8060507@ulb.ac.be> <000001ca4eea$88a79bc0$99f6d340$@no> <000501ca4ef9$40f769e0$c2e63da0$@no> <000901ca4f11$b5cbef80$2163ce80$@no> <92C904150E4C4624985D39C9716A0A55@Mildred> <001f01ca4f7b$4d0b0520$e7210f60$@no><000001ca4fc8$6fd89980$4f89cc80$@no><5513492852CB46A09508033F7B0761A5@Mildred> <1A36A116-B841-479E-B934-5B3ED4814F58@starpower.net> Message-ID: <67C0A8BE-88D4-4FA4-93B0-C97D8EA313C7@starpower.net> On Oct 22, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> Did the authors of the laws really intend to create a >> situation in which you are entitled to some particular >> piece of information only if you request it at the first >> possible opportunity? > > +=+ It is over 12 years now since the WBFLC took back > to its corporate self the exclusive right to issue authoritative > statements as to its intentions and interpretations. So I can > only speak as to my own view of the subject. I believe that > the intention is to confine questioning during the auction and > play solely to matters that have become relevant as the > consequence of what has occurred on the board. As I > understand the law, relevance is considered to be what the > questioner needs to know about the situation reached in > order to decide upon his next action, and the Beijing minute > was simply a clarification of this. > If there is information missing from the card that is not > relevant in the foregoing terms the time to rectify the omission > is not in the middle of a board. Presumably, then, if I may not do so in the middle of a board, the only useful and proper "time to rectify the omission" is "before commencing play against" [L40A1(b)] my current opponents. That means that in order to fully protect myself from the consequences of failing to act in a timely manner I must examine the opponents' CC in detail prior to commencing play against them, determine all possible potential omissions, ascertain which of those possibilities have in fact actually been omitted, and determine what specific information has been omitted in each such instance. And because L40A1(b) refers to "its partnership understandings" without limiting them to those which are required to be noted on the CC, "what is missing from the card" (Grattan's phrase) must mean "whatever is not on the card", as opposed to merely "whatever is required to be on the card but isn't". In other words, to simultaneously protect my rights under L40A1(b) and conform to Grattan's notion of timeliness I will have to ask hundreds of questions of my opponents prior to commencing play of each round of the game. Too bad, since if I were to be permitted to "rectify the omission... in the middle of a board" I might need something like an average of half a question per round instead of hundreds (thousands?). I can only wonder whether, if I were to exercise my rights in the only manner that Grattan's (sorry, I mean the WBFLC's) interpretation of the disclosure laws would permit me to, I would be allowed to return to his club ever again. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 22 19:15:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:15:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) References: <4AD73AA4.7060503@cfa.harvard.edu> <4ADFC457.8030402@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <97ADC16B4444497A815C40829D095F15@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) > > I see nothing whatsoever in TFLB to suggest that what is properly > subject to disclosure is in any way dependent on the RA's CC > regulations. We can argue about what exactly is properly subject to > disclosure, but whatever it is, the CC regs only address "the manner > in which this [providing the required disclosure] shall be > done" [L40A1(b)]. There is no authority to decide that the "manner > in which this shall be done" is "not at all". > +=+ If the RA wishes it may decide there shall be no system card. This is the effect of 'may' in Law 20B2(a). If the RA decides there shall be a system card it does so "for the prior listing of a partnership's understandings" and it may then "regulate its use". Law 40B2(a) says this. When taken with Law 40A1(b) these provisions in Law 40B2(a) give complete control of the way in which partnership understandings are disclosed, including the way in which a system card (if prescribed) is to be used. ~ G ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 22 21:06:26 2009 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:06:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP><4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> <001201ca5198$89fe6570$9dfb3050$@com><4329B2EA73F24028823B364D483C3025@MARVLAPTOP> <000001ca5282$4a403b30$dec0b190$@com><0DCACA5DE45F4E4A9C3777CCB7048722@stefanie> <000001ca5309$f293e430$d7bbac90$@com> Message-ID: <3A7538EC38084770896AAD6E36656D48@stefanie> > [DALB] > > Of course, no normal person would say either of the above. Instead, they > would say in the first case "His friends told me that he went to chapel > every day" and in the second "His parents made him go to chapel every > day". I'm really sorry if this is an affront to your national honour, David, but I have heard that ghastly usage from a number of "normal" Britons. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 22 22:48:29 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:48:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. In-Reply-To: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> References: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Grattan wrote: > I wrote: > It is over 12 years now since the WBFLC took back > to its corporate self the exclusive right to issue authoritative > statements as to its intentions and interpretations. So I can > only speak as to my own view of the subject. I believe that > the intention is to confine questioning during the auction and > play solely to matters that have become relevant as the > consequence of what has occurred on the board. As I > understand the law, relevance is considered to be what the > questioner needs to know about the situation reached in > order to decide upon his next action, and the Beijing minute > was simply a clarification of this. > If there is information missing from the card that is not > relevant in the foregoing terms the time to rectify the omission > is not in the middle of a board. > ...................................................................... > .......... > Unrelated to the above Eric wrote: > I am considering making a pre-emptive bid, and would wish > to risk doing so if a double of it by LHO would be negative > or "cards" but not if LHO would be able to double for penalty. > Under the Beijing minute, as Grattan has explained it, since > LHO's double of my not-yet-bid pre-empt is neither a call > actually made nor an available alternative to a call already > made, I am not entitled to find out what my opponents' > agreements are with respect to LHO's prospective double. > Until the current discussion of the subject arose on BLML, > it would not have occurred to me or any of the working TDs > I know that the law did not entitle me to this knowledge, > notwithstanding Grattan's insistence that the Beijing minute > was merely an interpretation rather than a substantive change > in the law. > > The Beijing minute means that taking a quick glance at the > opponents' CC in this situation to ascertain whether or how > high they play negative doubles is cheating. This will come > as rather shocking news to anyone unfamiliar with the > WBFLC's actions in Beijing. > ...................................................................... > .......... > +=+ This contribution from Eric is the first one to arouse > in me a glimmer of interest concerning whether the law does > allow to the player anything he might reasonably need to > know at the point reached in the auction. However, to start > with, I do not understand the suggestion that he is not able > to consult opponent's system card at his turn to call. The > Beijing minute deals only with the asking of questions and > it does not preclude consultation of opponent's system > card as Law 40B2(c)(iii) allows. The question is to what information is a player entitled. Given a desire to ascertain something about his opponents' methods, he must be either entitled to the information or not. Whether he can, or does, obtain it by consulting an opponent's CC or by asking a question -- "the manner in which this shall be done" -- can't be relevant to the question of whether or not he should get it. His rights to full disclosure cannot depend on which CC form his opponent uses or precisely how he chooses to fill it out, any more than it can depend on the legibility of his handwriting. If a player isn't entitled to the information, he cannot consult the CC for it; if he is entitled to it, he may ask. > En passant it seems to me that were the law to allow > the player to ask about the meaning of a double over the > call he is about to make, he would wish to know also > about the position under Law 40B3. Beyond that there > could be a subject for the Director as to what inferences > his opponents might draw legitimately from the fact that > he has asked the question, and how they might then act. L40B3 speaks to varying one's partnership understandings, and is irrelevant here. One's partnership understandings include specific defenses to opponents' specific methods. Selecting one's defensive methods based on what opponents' agreement one is defending against is *not* varying one's methods. L40B3 prohibits changing one's methods based on whether, or the manner in which, a question is asked or an answer given, but to prohibit changing one's methods based on the actual information obtained would require one to have a universal defense playable against all possible conventions. > I shall watch attentively for rabbits if blml ferrets run > the mazy warrens in this ground. I don't quite know what this means, but "I shall watch attentively" can't be all bad. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 23 03:30:43 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:30:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. References: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> <2ec371884f3ec6ec0f2f0fb665a84243.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. > By the time we get to Beijing ("At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made") the entitlement to future bids seems to have disappeared, no doubt accidentally. > +=+ 1997 law 20F1 allowed "a full explanation of the opponents' auction" and in parenthesis defined this as "calls actually made" or "relevant calls available but not made". This does not extend to future calls. Law 40E in the 1997 book allows the convention card, if one is prescribed, to be consulted. There is no authorization in Law 40E to raise questions during the auction and play. If questions about future calls were to be allowed the regulations for use of the card needed to say so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 23 05:15:44 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:15:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> From: rfrick at rfrick.info > In fact, it is disconcerting to hear a bid explained as "asking for a > 5-card major". It is simpler, and much more informative, to hear that it > is Puppet Stayman. Does anyone else share Robert's opinion? It seems bizarre to me. I want to know what a bid shows, not what it's called. > Similarly, I do not want to hear that a 2NT is a relay, > which tells me nothing about what is happening or going to happen. > Instead, I want to hear Lebensohl. Even worse. Aside from being a misnomer if Robert plays lebensohl the way most do, I want to know what hand types are shown, not a name. (As usually played, lebensohl is a puppet, not a relay. This emphasizes the difficulty of being understood by giving names.) > Does the ACBL really say that the opponents do not have to tell me the > name of the convention? ACBL says a name is not sufficient, and they're right. I don't think you are forbidden to give a name, but if opponents have a different understanding of the named convention than you do and have a misunderstanding, it's your fault. The one wrinkle in all this is relays (in the proper sense: things like Stayman and Blackwood). Those are really hard to explain because they cover so many different hand types. In practice, "asking for ..." works OK for the familiar ones, but it isn't strictly correct. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 23 05:26:48 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:26:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <4AE0A31F.8090307@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE0A31F.8090307@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AE12278.70609@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > I see nothing whatsoever in TFLB to suggest that what is properly > subject to disclosure is in any way dependent on the RA's CC > regulations. The issue is only to do with future calls and calls that are not relevant to the current auction. Your question about how high we play negative doubles is a good example. Our general answer -- against typical overcalls -- is written on the SC per ACBL regulations. However, if you play atypical overcalls, you will have to alert them when you make them, and we are fully entitled to vary our negative double agreements accordingly. I don't see anything giving you the right to ask about our agreements against hypothetical future calls. Or perhaps you can ask, but we can answer "It depends on the meaning of your calls." The "irrelevant calls" part becomes relevant when someone misbids. The WBFLC says that you are not entitled to ask about our responses to Blackwood unless we've used Blackwood, but you can find the normal ones by looking at our SC. > There is no authority to decide that the "manner > in which this shall be done" is "not at all". I'm afraid we disagree here. There is certainly authority to limit disclosure on SCs or forbid them altogether. To the extent that's done, and when questions are limited, the result will be "not at all." I personally believe "not at all" should apply only to the case of hypothetical future calls, but as we've seen, official opinion is against me. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 23 05:34:14 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:34:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net> SW> If the infraction is identical, why would the ruling or the inferences SW> from it be different at different tables? > From: Eric Landau > Because the ruling, and therefore the inferences from it, depend on > the OS's methods. I fear I'm missing something here. If the OS's at different tables play different methods, why would anyone expect that the rulings or inferences from them or end results would be the same, other than by coincidence? > I mean that for identical IBs on identical auctions, whether it > will be easy or hard to guess IBer's intent depends on his side's > methods. Quite true in general. > This is a problem because it means that a difference in > methods not relevant to the infraction may provide a significant > advantage to one OS (and corresponding disadvantage to the > corresponding NOS) over another in otherwise identical circumstances. It's the "not relevant to the infraction" I'm having trouble with. Let's say there are two IBs of 1C. One offender is playing Acol, and the other is playing Precision. Inferences and the likely ruling will be very different in the two cases. What's wrong with that? You can make the situation more complicated, but I guess what I'm not seeing is how any difference in method that makes a difference in interpretation of the IB is not "relevant to the infraction." From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 23 05:47:58 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:47:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A business of ferrets. In-Reply-To: <4AE0CBB3.7040001@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE0CBB3.7040001@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AE1276E.8090100@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > The question is to what information is a player entitled. Given a > desire to ascertain something about his opponents' methods, he must > be either entitled to the information or not. Whether he can, or > does, obtain it by consulting an opponent's CC or by asking a > question -- "the manner in which this shall be done" -- can't be > relevant to the question of whether or not he should get it. Why does that follow? Once "fully and freely available" is gone, it's hard to tell what restrictions apply. However, it's easy to imagine (and indeed give examples) where the SC rules dictate disclosure that would not be required in response to questions. As I wrote in the other thread, my personal belief is that this should apply only to hypothetical future auctions, but the WBFLC apparently takes a different view. Ah... I have a good example, not even considering the WBFLC's version of limited disclosure. Suppose we bid Blackwood, and you as our opponent are thinking of interfering. Let's say we're in a jurisdiction whose SCs don't say anything relevant. Are you entitled to find out whether we have agreements about dealing with Blackwood interference? (I think not.) Now suppose instead this is in the ACBL, where our SC is supposed to tell whether we use DOPI, DEPO, or something else over interference. Suppose we have nothing marked, and you take a chance and intervene. As it happens, we do have clear agreements but forgot to mark them, and you get hammered. Are you entitled to redress? (I think you are.) If you disagree, please say why. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 23 04:52:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:52:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. References: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. >> .......... > > The question is to what information is a player entitled. Given a > desire to ascertain something about his opponents' methods, he must > be either entitled to the information or not. Whether he can, or > does, obtain it by consulting an opponent's CC or by asking a > question -- "the manner in which this shall be done" -- can't be > relevant to the question of whether or not he should get it. His > rights to full disclosure cannot depend on which CC form his opponent > uses or precisely how he chooses to fill it out, any more than it can > depend on the legibility of his handwriting. If a player isn't > entitled to the information, he cannot consult the CC for it; if he > is entitled to it, he may ask. > +=+ His questions during the auction and play are limited to those allowed under Law 20F. Eric's quotation of "the manner in which this shall be done" refers to what is to happen "before commencing play against them". During the auction and play questions about the auction must be confined to what is relevant to the prior auction within the terms of Law 20F. There is no other authority in the laws for asking questions at this time; I think it is a moot point whether a regulation could enable other questioning if it were in place, purportedly under Law 40B2(a). I can not say whether 'use' of the System Card would be deemed to extend to raising questions during the auction and play. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 23 04:31:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:31:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. References: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. > > L40B3 speaks to varying one's partnership understandings, and is > irrelevant here. < +=+ Suppose an enquiry were made about the level to which the opponents played negative doubles (were such a question legal). Law 40B3 establishes that, unless prohibited by regulation, triggered by the question asked the partnership's understandings may forthwith vary in the auction so that what would have been a negative double is now for penalties. To me that seemed to be something the enquirer would want to take into consideration. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Oct 23 05:05:11 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:05:11 -0700 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP><4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> <001201ca5198$89fe6570$9dfb3050$@com><4329B2EA73F24028823B364D483C3025@MARVLAPTOP> <000001ca5282$4a403b30$dec0b190$@com> Message-ID: David Burns wrote: > [MF] > > DALB, Jeff Rubens, and schoolmarm English: > > He didn't know if the monarch WERE a king or a queen. If it WERE a > king, > then.... > > [DALB] > > That may be how Jeff Rubens speaks; it is not what I would say. I > would say > this: > > "Because he spoke no French, he did not know if the card his > opponent played > was the king or the jack. He guessed to play the queen, which > would have > been right if his opponent's card were the jack, but..." but it wasn't, I presume. I believe Jeff would use "were" in in both cases, while I would use "was" in the first sentence but "had been" in the second. I base the guess about Jeff on the following: >From memory (bad these days) I remember a Bridge World deal in which declarer was puzzling over the location of a king. "If it were on the right, he could finesse. If it were on the left, an endplay would be necesssary." Something like that. Because these are conditions not known to be contrary to fact, I would prefer using the indicative "was." Yes, I know there are other reasons for using subjunctive (hope, fear, etc.). I also lean toward the way bridge players commonly talk and write. I don't remember anyone's use of "were" as a past subjunctive when discussing bridge. Jeff, by the way, is a very tough editor who scrutinizes carefully the grammar used in submitted articles. He did not write the article I remembered, but certainly inserted (or okayed) the "were" usages. This was not a one-time occurrence, as my good friend Danny Kleinman's articles in BW also employ "were" as past subjunctive. When I politely questioned this usage he excoriated me as a grammar know-nothing. My eighth-grade nun told us, "Don't be confused by the fact that 'were' is past indicative. It is present subjunctive, not past subjunctive." When I Google this subject, however, I do see some sites using "were" as past subjunctive. At first I thought this was due to ignorance, but after multiple instances, I thought maybe Mother Mary Clement was wrong. Or right, perhaps, if she was referring to standard American usage. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From craigstamps at comcast.net Fri Oct 23 05:15:07 2009 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:15:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP><4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> <001201ca5198$89fe6570$9dfb3050$@com><4329B2EA73F24028823B364D483C3025@MARVLAPTOP><000001ca5282$4a403b30$dec0b190$@com> Message-ID: <008601ca538f$061e2cb0$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Don't you mean: "I thought maybe Mother Mary Clement was wrong. Or right, perhaps, if she were referring to standard American usage." ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] English Grammar > David Burns wrote: > >> [MF] >> >> DALB, Jeff Rubens, and schoolmarm English: >> >> He didn't know if the monarch WERE a king or a queen. If it WERE a >> king, >> then.... >> >> [DALB] >> >> That may be how Jeff Rubens speaks; it is not what I would say. I >> would say >> this: >> >> "Because he spoke no French, he did not know if the card his >> opponent played >> was the king or the jack. He guessed to play the queen, which >> would have >> been right if his opponent's card were the jack, but..." > > but it wasn't, I presume. I believe Jeff would use "were" in in > both cases, while I would use "was" in the first sentence but "had > been" in the second. I base the guess about Jeff on the following: > >>From memory (bad these days) I remember a Bridge World deal in which > declarer was puzzling over the location of a king. "If it were on > the right, he could finesse. If it were on the left, an endplay > would be necesssary." Something like that. Because these are > conditions not known to be contrary to fact, I would prefer using > the indicative "was." Yes, I know there are other reasons for using > subjunctive (hope, fear, etc.). I also lean toward the way bridge > players commonly talk and write. I don't remember anyone's use of > "were" as a past subjunctive when discussing bridge. Jeff, by the > way, is a very tough editor who scrutinizes carefully the grammar > used in submitted articles. He did not write the article I > remembered, but certainly inserted (or okayed) the "were" usages. > > This was not a one-time occurrence, as my good friend Danny > Kleinman's articles in BW also employ "were" as past subjunctive. > When I politely questioned this usage he excoriated me as a grammar > know-nothing. > > My eighth-grade nun told us, "Don't be confused by the fact that > 'were' is past indicative. It is present subjunctive, not past > subjunctive." When I Google this subject, however, I do see some > sites using "were" as past subjunctive. At first I thought this was > due to ignorance, but after multiple instances, I thought maybe > Mother Mary Clement was wrong. Or right, perhaps, if she was > referring to standard American usage. > > 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 Fri Oct 23 05:35:06 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:35:06 -0700 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP><4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> <001201ca5198$89fe6570$9dfb3050$@com><4329B2EA73F24028823B364D483C3025@MARVLAPTOP><000001ca5282$4a403b30$dec0b190$@com> <008601ca538f$061e2cb0$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Craig wrote: > Don't you mean: "I thought maybe > Mother Mary Clement was wrong. Or right, perhaps, if she were > referring to > standard American usage." ? NO! I don't use "were" in such sentences, preferring "was." Didn't I make that clear? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Oct 23 07:05:58 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:05:58 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax Message-ID: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> Okay, here's another Bridge World practice I dislike, which is now spreading to other bridge publications, at least in ACBL-land. When diiscussing a squeeze deal, wouldn't you say, "I was squeezed in hearts and spades"? Not if you're writing about it in BW, where Jeff would change that "in" to a "between." Now, that is more logical, but as Mother Mary Clement taught us, we should not question illogical syntax that is employed by not only the masses but also by good writers and speakers. Such things are called ideomatic expressions, she said, and they must not be questioned. Let's have a vote on that, please. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 23 07:42:43 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:42:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. In-Reply-To: References: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> <2ec371884f3ec6ec0f2f0fb665a84243.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:30:43 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Perhaps the straight and > narrow path would be wider > if more people used it". > [Kay Ingram] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:08 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. >> > By the time we get to Beijing ("At this time he is entitled > to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant > available alternative calls not made") the entitlement to > future bids seems to have disappeared, no doubt accidentally. >> > +=+ 1997 law 20F1 allowed "a full explanation of the opponents' > auction" and in parenthesis defined this as "calls actually made" or > "relevant calls available but not made". This does not extend to > future calls. I don't understand why this phrase would not apply to future calls. Certainly they meet the criterion of "not made". "relevant" doesn't seem impossible -- we are talking about calls I would like to ask about. Because we are talking about the future, they are still available. > Law 40E in the 1997 book allows the convention card, > if one is prescribed, to be consulted. > There is no authorization in Law 40E to raise questions > during the auction and play. If questions about future calls were to > be allowed the regulations for use of the card needed to say so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Oct 23 07:49:20 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:49:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: 2009/10/23 Steve Willner : > From: rfrick at rfrick.info >> In fact, it is disconcerting to hear a bid explained as "asking for a >> 5-card major". It is simpler, and much more informative, to hear that it >> is Puppet Stayman. > > Does anyone else share Robert's opinion? ?It seems bizarre to me. ?I > want to know what a bid shows, not what it's called. > >> Similarly, I do not want to hear that a 2NT is a relay, >> which tells me nothing about what is happening or going to happen. >> Instead, I want to hear Lebensohl. > > Even worse. ?Aside from being a misnomer if Robert plays lebensohl the > way most do, I want to know what hand types are shown, not a name. ?(As > usually played, lebensohl is a puppet, not a relay. ?This emphasizes the > difficulty of being understood by giving names.) > >> Does the ACBL really say that the opponents do not have to tell me the >> name of the convention? > > ACBL says a name is not sufficient, and they're right. ?I don't think > you are forbidden to give a name, but if opponents have a different > understanding of the named convention than you do and have a > misunderstanding, it's your fault. > > The one wrinkle in all this is relays (in the proper sense: things like > Stayman and Blackwood). ?Those are really hard to explain because they > cover so many different hand types. ?In practice, "asking for ..." works > OK for the familiar ones, but it isn't strictly correct. Agree completely with Steve on this issue. The Norwegian Bridge Federation is in line with ACBL here, naming conventions on th SC is generally not sufficient, you're supposed to explain the meaning. (Which, of course, doesn't happen all the time.:)) > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Oct 23 07:55:25 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:55:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax In-Reply-To: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: 2009/10/23 Marvin L French : > Okay, here's another Bridge World ?practice I ?dislike, ?which is > now spreading to other bridge publications, at least ?in ACBL-land. > > When diiscussing a squeeze deal, wouldn't you say, "I was squeezed > in hearts and spades"? Not if you're writing about it in BW, where > Jeff would change that "in" to a "between." > > Now, ?that is ?more logical, but as Mother Mary Clement taught us, > we should not question illogical syntax that is employed by not only > the masses but also by good writers and speakers. Such things are > called ideomatic expressions, she said, and they must not be > questioned. > > Let's have a vote on that, please. I would say (and write) "squeezed in...". Not because I'm sure it's syntactically correct, but because it feels natural to me. It's exactly the same expression I'd use in Norwegian, btw. > > 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 sater at xs4all.nl Fri Oct 23 09:47:56 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:47:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Can you deduce something from this non-alert? Message-ID: <006601ca53b5$227d3f60$6777be20$@nl> Recently two players at the club, in a new partnership, still somewhat shaky with the agreements, had the following: One opened 2D(multi), the other bid 4C(meant as an ask for a transfer to openers suit, reasonably common agreement). There was no alert on the 4C. Opener now bid 4H and responder guessed to pass. Responder guessed right, North had hearts(his correct bid now being 4D). The question is now if the non-alert on 4C is 16B1a information leading in a certain direction or not? Responder claims that since 4C in this bidding cannot be natural in any way it should always have been alerted, and although the non-alert is wrong he can draw no conclusions from it, and is still free to guess. The directors decision(where I was involved in advise) was that a partner not alerting a certain bid shows uncertainty, and thus a higher percentage chance of a misunderstanding. The ruling therefore was that responder should now bid 4S. Dutch alerting regulations say that although bids higher than 3NT are not alertable, in the first round of bidding they are, so 4C was alertable. Any opinion? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091023/b0ecbb8c/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 23 10:32:39 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:32:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <38C42277-B0E7-4427-AF6E-9495EBEDCE93@starpower.net> References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> <4ADDD7DA.7090105@skynet.be> <38C42277-B0E7-4427-AF6E-9495EBEDCE93@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4AE16A27.5050003@skynet.be> No Eric, it isn't. see below: Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 20, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> This is the kind of answer by Grattan (and the WBF) that I dislike: >> >> Grattan wrote: >> >>> +=+ This last statement is based upon a wrong assumption The use >>> of the >>> system card is regulated by the Regulating Authority. See Law 40B2 >>> (a). >>> The WBF regulation specifies that the use of the System >>> card is for >>> disclosure of the partnership's conventions and treatments. No >>> other use >>> is authorized. Bear in mind (see minute above) that positive >>> authorization >>> is needed for any other use Consult rhe regulations for the >>> tournaments >>> in which you play, and if they are unclear ask the Regulating >>> Authority to >>> clarify. >> This answer tells us that NBOs who fail to have regulations like this >> have only themselves to blame if a player does something that in some >> other country (or a WBF tournament) is considered illegal. Why does >> the >> WBF not put these regulations into the laws, so that we are not >> obliged >> to write thousands of regulations ourselves? >> >> I find the regulation above quite correct, and a solution to the >> problem >> about the Capeletti 2Di - but this regulation does not exist in >> Belgium. >> Why? > > The ACBL has a totally different solution to the problem: You are > required to describe your conventions on your CC. Names are not > descriptions, and the names of conventions, other than those printed > on the CC (Stayman, Jacoby (transfers), Texas, Gerber, also > Blackwood, assumed original if not specified otherwise) do not belong > there. There is no reason to use or include the name "Cappelletti" > in the description of your defense to 1NT openings, and you should > avoid doing so. > The problem under discussion was a very uncommon one. A player, remembering he was playing Capeletti, but forgetting how that went, was fortunate enough to see Capeletti, and a description, on his opponents' SC. Grattan tells us that the WBF has a regulation forbidding any other usage of the SC than to look up opponents' system. My point (in this post) was that it was unfortunate that the WBF make such regulations but don't make them applicable world-wide (possibly tolerating NBOs making changes - but at least helping those NBOs who don't have the manpower to write regulations on every conceivable matter). That point remains. As to the local solutions: 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. So most SC will contain only the one or the other. Most NBOs will have regulations stating that naming a convention is not enough, except for a few (listed) very common ones. The ACBL has such a regulation, but so does the BBF, if perhaps less well written-out. > In the ACBL, you are entitled to know what your opponents' methods > are. You are not entitled to know whose name they refer to them by. > Why should that be an ACBL regulation? Why would anyone WANT to know what a convention is named. Why should such a name be an entitlement? In any jurisdiction? > Is this a point in favor of the WBF's "different ways for different > RAs" approach? > No it is not. I cannot imagine any NBO wishing to allow people to look up their own system on opponents' card. And if such an NBO were to exist, I'm sure they would not mind having to express their clearly deviant wishes by writing a specific regulation tolerating this. I have no qualms with NBOs wishing to tweak global regulations to suit their own particular playing style. When I have to explain the subtle difference between the Dutch and Belgian system regulations (the one allowing "brown" conventions over a 2-card 1Cl opening, the other not), I will gladly do so, since I do believe our regulation is better. But when I have to explain that in the WBF, you are not allowed to look up Capeletti on your opponents's SC, while in Belgium you are (apparently), then all I can say is "mea culpa, I spend only one evening per month in the regulation committee, not one every week". I urge the WBF, once again, to make its regulations applicable for all bridge play all over the world, barring local changes explicitely made. 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. > > Eric Landau Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 23 10:46:07 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:46:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4AE16D4F.8030809@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > From: rfrick at rfrick.info >> In fact, it is disconcerting to hear a bid explained as "asking for a >> 5-card major". It is simpler, and much more informative, to hear that it >> is Puppet Stayman. > > Does anyone else share Robert's opinion? It seems bizarre to me. I > want to know what a bid shows, not what it's called. > I share Robert's opinion. I also want to know what a bid shows, but when I know the convention, I prefer to hear one word rather than an endless list of irrelevant information that will be undoubtedly incomplete. If the answer is "asking for 5-cards", I will have to ask again what "3Di" means. If the first answer is "Niemeyer", I can be reasonably certain that 3Di shows a 4-card major (well, that is what it would show in Belgium). If I don't know what Niemeyer is, I can always ask further. But if I do know what it is, the long answer is unhelpful. >> Similarly, I do not want to hear that a 2NT is a relay, >> which tells me nothing about what is happening or going to happen. >> Instead, I want to hear Lebensohl. > > Even worse. Aside from being a misnomer if Robert plays lebensohl the > way most do, I want to know what hand types are shown, not a name. (As > usually played, lebensohl is a puppet, not a relay. This emphasizes the > difficulty of being understood by giving names.) > That is quite a different problem. If, in general usage where you play, one word answers are understood differently by different people, they should be avoided. But where I play, Lebensohl just asks to bid 3Cl without showing clubs, while Rubensohl shows genuine clubs. Anyone using those conventions would be welcome, at my table, to explain 2NT by that one word. >> Does the ACBL really say that the opponents do not have to tell me the >> name of the convention? > > ACBL says a name is not sufficient, and they're right. I don't think > you are forbidden to give a name, but if opponents have a different > understanding of the named convention than you do and have a > misunderstanding, it's your fault. > Indeed. Quite correctly so. > The one wrinkle in all this is relays (in the proper sense: things like > Stayman and Blackwood). Those are really hard to explain because they > cover so many different hand types. In practice, "asking for ..." works > OK for the familiar ones, but it isn't strictly correct. Whereas "Blackwood" is completely correct and generally understood by all. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 23 10:49:50 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:49:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Can you deduce something from this non-alert? In-Reply-To: <006601ca53b5$227d3f60$6777be20$@nl> References: <006601ca53b5$227d3f60$6777be20$@nl> Message-ID: <4AE16E2E.2050209@skynet.be> Completely correct ruling, and for the correct reason. With an alert there would be no reason to suspect partner had forgotten and no-one would pass. I would allow a correction to 5H by opener, and a pass by responder, though. The ruling should be 5H-1, not 5S-7. Herman. Hans van Staveren wrote: > Recently two players at the club, in a new partnership, still somewhat > shaky with the agreements, had the following: > > > > One opened 2D(multi), the other bid 4C(meant as an ask for a transfer to > openers suit, reasonably common agreement). There was no alert on the 4C. > > Opener now bid 4H and responder guessed to pass. Responder guessed > right, North had hearts(his correct bid now being 4D). > > > > The question is now if the non-alert on 4C is 16B1a information leading > in a certain direction or not? > > Responder claims that since 4C in this bidding cannot be natural in any > way it should always have been alerted, and although the non-alert is > wrong he can draw no conclusions from it, and is still free to guess. > > > > The directors decision(where I was involved in advise) was that a > partner not alerting a certain bid shows uncertainty, and thus a higher > percentage chance of a misunderstanding. The ruling therefore was that > responder should now bid 4S. > > > > Dutch alerting regulations say that although bids higher than 3NT are > not alertable, in the first round of bidding they are, so 4C was alertable. > > > > Any opinion? > > > > Hans > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 23 11:14:11 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:14:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A business of ferrets. References: <4AE0CBB3.7040001@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE1276E.8090100@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0DBD6445FD764306B53D5E8C38938F5A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A business of ferrets. > Once "fully and freely available" is gone, it's hard to tell > what restrictions apply. < +=+ I have been trying to think where the phrase "fully and freely available" appears (or once appeared) in the laws. I do not recall seeing it there. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 23 11:21:49 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:21:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com><4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be><67F7D956925245B99DB7408533330F1B@MARVLAPTOP> <4D532B0C23A545628754375E529537E3@MARVLAPTOP><4ADDD0DA.3060902@skynet.be> <001201ca5198$89fe6570$9dfb3050$@com><4329B2EA73F24028823B364D483C3025@MARVLAPTOP><000001ca5282$4a403b30$dec0b190$@com> <008601ca538f$061e2cb0$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] English Grammar > Don't you mean: "I thought maybe Mother Mary Clement > was wrong. Or right, perhaps, if she were referring to > standard American usage." ? > +=+ Ah, Craig, we evidently have a route of werewolves on here. You don't wish to be among them? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 23 11:40:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:40:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> <4ADDD7DA.7090105@skynet.be><38C42277-B0E7-4427-AF6E-9495EBEDCE93@starpower.net> <4AE16A27.5050003@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes >> > > The problem under discussion was a very uncommon > one. A player, remembering he was playing Capeletti, > but forgetting how that went, was fortunate enough to > see Capeletti, and a description, on his opponents' SC. > Grattan tells us that the WBF has a regulation forbidding > any other usage of the SC than to look up opponents' system. > My point (in this post) was that it was unfortunate that the > WBF make such regulations but don't make them applicable > world-wide (possibly tolerating NBOs making changes - > but at least helping those NBOs who don't have the > manpower to write regulations on every conceivable matter). > +=+ I have often thought that NBOs might usefully include a simple statement in their regulations to ptovide that in default of a provision in those regulations the Director may apply the relevant provision in 'the current regulations of the xxxxxxx' unless absence of regulation was provided for in the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 23 11:49:22 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:49:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax In-Reply-To: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4AE17C22.3040201@ulb.ac.be> Marvin L French a ?crit : > Okay, here's another Bridge World practice I dislike, which is > now spreading to other bridge publications, at least in ACBL-land. > > When diiscussing a squeeze deal, wouldn't you say, "I was squeezed > in hearts and spades"? Not if you're writing about it in BW, where > Jeff would change that "in" to a "between." > > Now, that is more logical, but as Mother Mary Clement taught us, > we should not question illogical syntax that is employed by not only > the masses but also by good writers and speakers. Such things are > called ideomatic expressions, she said, and they must not be > questioned. > AG : the most logical would be 'with'. 'Between' is a good second choice. In French, we use 'entre' (between) or no preposition at all. Notice that syntax should be discussed and questioned in some cases, e.g. when ist creates ambiguity. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 23 12:17:43 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:17:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Can you deduce something from this non-alert? References: <006601ca53b5$227d3f60$6777be20$@nl> Message-ID: <67A9D75293C54E898D67258C9966044B@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/10/23 Marvin L French : > > Okay, here's another Bridge World ?practice I ?dislike, ?which is > > now spreading to other bridge publications, at least ?in ACBL-land. > > > > When diiscussing a squeeze deal, wouldn't you say, "I was squeezed > > in hearts and spades"? Not if you're writing about it in BW, where > > Jeff would change that "in" to a "between." > > > > Now, ?that is ?more logical, but as Mother Mary Clement taught us, > > we should not question illogical syntax that is employed by not only > > the masses but also by good writers and speakers. Such things are > > called ideomatic expressions, she said, and they must not be > > questioned. > > > > Let's have a vote on that, please. > > I would say (and write) "squeezed in...". Not because I'm sure it's > syntactically correct, but because it feels natural to me. It's > exactly the same expression I'd use in Norwegian, btw. I also use "squeezed in", both in English and in German. This is historically grown language usage. Yes, "between" might be more logical, but "squeezed in" is what bridge writers and bridge players have used for decades. Then, not every squeeze is an ordinary two suited squeeze. "I was squeezed between spades" for a one-suit squeeze in spades looks ugly. Thomas Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 23 12:28:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:28:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> <4AE17C22.3040201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <550FD9D20B954B67AA22ED17AF09BD32@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge Syntax Notice that syntax should be discussed and questioned in some cases, e.g. when it creates ambiguity. +=+ I agree that syntax should be discussed and questioned in some cases, viz. when it creates ambiguity.+=+ ;-) From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 23 13:28:05 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:28:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> <4ADDD7DA.7090105@skynet.be><38C42277-B0E7-4427-AF6E-9495EBEDCE93@starpower.net> <4AE16A27.5050003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4AE19345.708@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > >> > +=+ I have often thought that NBOs might usefully include a > simple statement in their regulations to ptovide that in default > of a provision in those regulations the Director may apply the > relevant provision in 'the current regulations of the xxxxxxx' > unless absence of regulation was provided for in the laws. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Yes Grattan, they could. The problem with that approach is that the WBF does not make that easy. The most useful place this could happen is in system regulations. Yet, the WBF never makes a set of "system regulations 2009", but rather a "system regulations Sao Paulo". And when the WBF then organise a championship in Istanbul (juniors), we do not see a reference to some general regulation, but rather again a "new" regulation. Similarly, the regulations for screens are repeated every year, and we don't know if they have been changed or not. If they were to be published simply separate from the regulations from the tournament, both the WBF itself, and every single NBO that so wishes, could reference the document. Understand what I mean? Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 23 13:58:28 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:58:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax In-Reply-To: <4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> <4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4AE19A64.9060807@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Then, not every squeeze is an ordinary two suited squeeze. > "I was squeezed between spades" for a one-suit squeeze > in spades looks ugly. > > But 'between my spades' or 'the spades' ... From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 23 14:49:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:49:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> <4ADDD7DA.7090105@skynet.be><38C42277-B0E7-4427-AF6E-9495EBEDCE93@starpower.net> <4AE16A27.5050003@skynet.be> <4AE19345.708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <11D34C5CE6424047B7B55E3A2A4DEDAB@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes . > The most useful place this could happen is in system regulations. Yet, > the WBF never makes a set of "system regulations 2009", but rather a > "system regulations Sao Paulo". And when the WBF then organise a > championship in Istanbul (juniors), we do not see a reference to some > general regulation, but rather again a "new" regulation. > > Similarly, the regulations for screens are repeated every year, and we > don't know if they have been changed or not. If they were to be > published simply separate from the regulations from the tournament, both > the WBF itself, and every single NBO that so wishes, could reference the > document. > > Understand what I mean? > +=+ The WBF Systems Policy is published on the website and on the ecats website. This presents the systems regulations. The screens procedure regulations are in the General Conditions of Contest; these were changed for Sao Paulo but had remained unaltered for years before that. Again these regulations may be accessed via the websites, and downloaded if you wish. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 23 14:53:54 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:53:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <97ADC16B4444497A815C40829D095F15@Mildred> References: <4AD73AA4.7060503@cfa.harvard.edu> <4ADFC457.8030402@nhcc.net> <97ADC16B4444497A815C40829D095F15@Mildred> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> I see nothing whatsoever in TFLB to suggest that what is properly >> subject to disclosure is in any way dependent on the RA's CC >> regulations. We can argue about what exactly is properly subject to >> disclosure, but whatever it is, the CC regs only address "the manner >> in which this [providing the required disclosure] shall be >> done" [L40A1(b)]. There is no authority to decide that the "manner >> in which this shall be done" is "not at all". > > +=+ If the RA wishes it may decide there shall be no system card. > This is the effect of 'may' in Law 20B2(a). > If the RA decides there shall be a system card it does so "for > the prior listing of a partnership's understandings" and it may then > "regulate its use". Law 40B2(a) says this. > When taken with Law 40A1(b) these provisions in Law 40B2(a) > give complete control of the way in which partnership understandings > are disclosed, including the way in which a system card (if > prescribed) > is to be used. This would seem to reinforce the notion that what is properly subject to disclosure cannot depend on the RA's CC regulations. If the RA decides that there shall be no system card, and does not permit me to spend a great deal of time in extensive Q&A prior to the start of the round (duplicate bridge is a timed event), and holds to the Beijing interpretation of L20F1, then there is information about the opponents' methods to which I am absolutely entitled by law, which may be critical to some bidding or play decision I must make in the course of the round, that there is no legal way for me to obtain. The RA may decide that there shall be no system card, but may not, by doing so, decide that there shall be no disclosure. I believe that the rights set forth in L40A1(b) are absolute (indeed, that L40A1(b) was written to enshrine the Kaplan doctrine in the Law), so that when an RA, "specif[ying] the manner in which this shall be done", determines what information about one's partnership understandings shall be disclosed in advance, it implicitly allows one's opponents to defer receipt of the remaining information to which they are entitled until such time as they decide they require it. The RA has the authority under L40A1(b) to decide which agreements must be disclosed in advance, but does not have the authority to decide which agreements must be disclosed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 23 15:12:04 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:12:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > The one wrinkle in all this is relays (in the proper sense: things > like > Stayman and Blackwood). Those are really hard to explain because they > cover so many different hand types. In practice, "asking for ..." > works > OK for the familiar ones, but it isn't strictly correct. We accept that "asking for aces" is equivalent to "systemically shows a hand that wants to know how many aces I have". That this is embedded in our terminology is demonstrated by the fact that asking for aces when when doesn't care about the answer is generally referred to as "psyching Blackwood". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 23 15:16:59 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:16:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AE16A27.5050003@skynet.be> References: <8AAE7E6940C04E12AC1444D3E153F882@Mildred> <7DA1D3FF76234138982C08D297379C73@Mildred> <4ADDD7DA.7090105@skynet.be> <38C42277-B0E7-4427-AF6E-9495EBEDCE93@starpower.net> <4AE16A27.5050003@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:32:39 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > No Eric, it isn't. > see below: > > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Oct 20, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> This is the kind of answer by Grattan (and the WBF) that I dislike: >>> >>> Grattan wrote: >>> >>>> +=+ This last statement is based upon a wrong assumption The use >>>> of the >>>> system card is regulated by the Regulating Authority. See Law 40B2 >>>> (a). >>>> The WBF regulation specifies that the use of the System >>>> card is for >>>> disclosure of the partnership's conventions and treatments. No >>>> other use >>>> is authorized. Bear in mind (see minute above) that positive >>>> authorization >>>> is needed for any other use Consult rhe regulations for the >>>> tournaments >>>> in which you play, and if they are unclear ask the Regulating >>>> Authority to >>>> clarify. >>> This answer tells us that NBOs who fail to have regulations like this >>> have only themselves to blame if a player does something that in some >>> other country (or a WBF tournament) is considered illegal. Why does >>> the >>> WBF not put these regulations into the laws, so that we are not >>> obliged >>> to write thousands of regulations ourselves? >>> >>> I find the regulation above quite correct, and a solution to the >>> problem >>> about the Capeletti 2Di - but this regulation does not exist in >>> Belgium. >>> Why? >> >> The ACBL has a totally different solution to the problem: You are >> required to describe your conventions on your CC. Names are not >> descriptions, and the names of conventions, other than those printed >> on the CC (Stayman, Jacoby (transfers), Texas, Gerber, also >> Blackwood, assumed original if not specified otherwise) do not belong >> there. There is no reason to use or include the name "Cappelletti" >> in the description of your defense to 1NT openings, and you should >> avoid doing so. >> > > The problem under discussion was a very uncommon one. A player, > remembering he was playing Capeletti, but forgetting how that went, was > fortunate enough to see Capeletti, and a description, on his opponents' > SC. > Grattan tells us that the WBF has a regulation forbidding any other > usage of the SC than to look up opponents' system. I meant to post on this before. This still allows looking at the card to discover the opponents' conventions to then make inferences about my own partner's bid when he is using a convention I don't know/remember. Longer story: I think Grattan derived this from L40 -- the purpose of looking at the convention card is to find out the opponents' systems and treatments. Therefore, any other usage, not being mentioned, is not allowed. This means you can't look at the convention card to stall for time, read the IMP tables, find out what bids are alertable, or learn the opponents' names. It still leaves open all of the reasons why you might want to learn the opponents' conventions and treatments -- to find out what they are likely to have in their hands, to learn where the bidding is going, to estimate their ability, and to make inferences about your own partner's bid when both you and the opponent's are playing a convention you don't know or forgot. Bob > My point (in this post) was that it was unfortunate that the WBF make > such regulations but don't make them applicable world-wide (possibly > tolerating NBOs making changes - but at least helping those NBOs who > don't have the manpower to write regulations on every conceivable > matter). > > That point remains. > As to the local solutions: 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. So most SC will contain only the one or the > other. Most NBOs will have regulations stating that naming a convention > is not enough, except for a few (listed) very common ones. The ACBL has > such a regulation, but so does the BBF, if perhaps less well written-out. > >> In the ACBL, you are entitled to know what your opponents' methods >> are. You are not entitled to know whose name they refer to them by. >> > > Why should that be an ACBL regulation? Why would anyone WANT to know > what a convention is named. Why should such a name be an entitlement? In > any jurisdiction? > >> Is this a point in favor of the WBF's "different ways for different >> RAs" approach? >> > > No it is not. I cannot imagine any NBO wishing to allow people to look > up their own system on opponents' card. > And if such an NBO were to exist, I'm sure they would not mind having to > express their clearly deviant wishes by writing a specific regulation > tolerating this. > > I have no qualms with NBOs wishing to tweak global regulations to suit > their own particular playing style. When I have to explain the subtle > difference between the Dutch and Belgian system regulations (the one > allowing "brown" conventions over a 2-card 1Cl opening, the other not), > I will gladly do so, since I do believe our regulation is better. But > when I have to explain that in the WBF, you are not allowed to look up > Capeletti on your opponents's SC, while in Belgium you are (apparently), > then all I can say is "mea culpa, I spend only one evening per month in > the regulation committee, not one every week". > > I urge the WBF, once again, to make its regulations applicable for all > bridge play all over the world, barring local changes explicitely made. > 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. > >> >> Eric Landau > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 23 15:22:22 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:22:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. In-Reply-To: References: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> <2ec371884f3ec6ec0f2f0fb665a84243.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:30:43 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Perhaps the straight and > narrow path would be wider > if more people used it". > [Kay Ingram] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:08 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. >> > By the time we get to Beijing ("At this time he is entitled > to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant > available alternative calls not made") the entitlement to > future bids seems to have disappeared, no doubt accidentally. >> > +=+ 1997 law 20F1 allowed "a full explanation of the opponents' > auction" and in parenthesis defined this as "calls actually made" or > "relevant calls available but not made". This does not extend to > future calls. Law 40E in the 1997 book allows the convention card, > if one is prescribed, to be consulted. > There is no authorization in Law 40E to raise questions > during the auction and play. If questions about future calls were to > be allowed the regulations for use of the card needed to say so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Does this mean that I properly cannot ask the opponents their discard conventions until they make a discard? I never would, but I know my partner does. This would solve Eric's problem -- it looks like he wouldn't be able to ask any questions before the auction started. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 23 15:32:01 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:32:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4AE1B051.1010208@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > >> The one wrinkle in all this is relays (in the proper sense: things >> like >> Stayman and Blackwood). Those are really hard to explain because they >> cover so many different hand types. In practice, "asking for ..." >> works >> OK for the familiar ones, but it isn't strictly correct. >> > > We accept that "asking for aces" is equivalent to "systemically shows > a hand that wants to know how many aces I have". That this is > embedded in our terminology is demonstrated by the fact that asking > for aces when when doesn't care about the answer is generally > referred to as "psyching Blackwood". > AG : this syllogism is put to the test by the case of those who play 2NT-3NT as artificial and need to bid 3C first, ostensibly asking for majors, to land in 3NT. 3C is asking for majors, yet it doesn't show the desire to find the answer, and it isn't a psyche because it's systemic. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 23 15:42:59 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:42:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. In-Reply-To: References: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> <2ec371884f3ec6ec0f2f0fb665a84243.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2009, at 9:30 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: > > By the time we get to Beijing ("At this time he is entitled > to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant > available alternative calls not made") the entitlement to > future bids seems to have disappeared, no doubt accidentally. > > +=+ 1997 law 20F1 allowed "a full explanation of the opponents' > auction" and in parenthesis defined this as "calls actually made" or > "relevant calls available but not made". This does not extend to > future calls. How so? We have clearly established that future calls may be "relevant" (e.g. whether opponent's double of a contemplated preempt would be for penalty or takeout). A method becomes "available" ("accessible for use; at hand; usable" [AHD]) when the partnership decides to incorporate it in their body of agreements. A "future call" obviously qualifies as "not made". In 2008 the reference in L20F1 to "relevant calls" was changed to "relevant alternative calls". Regardless of the precise shade of meaning we assign to the word "alternative", it is clear that "alternative calls" must be a subset of "calls". Moreover, the logic (as opposed to repeated unsupported assertion) that has been presented here so far in support of the view that "this does not extend to future calls" under current law has in every case depended on the presence of the word "alternative". It would appear to any literate reader of English that the 2008 version of L20F1 has been substantively altered from the 1997 version of that law. Were it not for the WBFLC's insistence that this is not so, I do not imagine that it would have occurred to anyone here to doubt it. > Law 40E in the 1997 book allows the convention card, > if one is prescribed, to be consulted. > There is no authorization in Law 40E to raise questions > during the auction and play. If questions about future calls were to > be allowed the regulations for use of the card needed to say so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 23 15:55:59 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:55:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:12:04 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> The one wrinkle in all this is relays (in the proper sense: things >> like >> Stayman and Blackwood). Those are really hard to explain because they >> cover so many different hand types. In practice, "asking for ..." >> works >> OK for the familiar ones, but it isn't strictly correct. > > We accept that "asking for aces" is equivalent to "systemically shows > a hand that wants to know how many aces I have". That this is > embedded in our terminology is demonstrated by the fact that asking > for aces when when doesn't care about the answer is generally > referred to as "psyching Blackwood". So, I open 1NT, the opponents overcall, and my partner bids 2NT Lebensohl. I am supposed to explain this how? I am not sure. Lebensohl -- fast, easy, informative -- isn't allowed. Relay to 3 Cl? Steve said it was a puppet, not a relay. It seems neither I nor my opponents are likely to understand this distinction and this hardly seems to fit the intent of the regulation to avoid jargon. "Telling me to bid 3 Cl" seems to be the correct answer. It is the exact same answer I give if we use that bid to show a club suit and stop in clubs. According to Eric I am not required to tell them Lebensohl. That fits with the notion that I do not need to tell them about future bids. All they get to find out know is that my partner is asking me to bid 3 Cl. Or they can look on my convention card, where the ACBL has put a box for me to check called Lebensohl. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 23 17:14:29 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:14:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <4AE12278.70609@nhcc.net> References: <4AE0A31F.8090307@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12278.70609@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:26 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> I see nothing whatsoever in TFLB to suggest that what is properly >> subject to disclosure is in any way dependent on the RA's CC >> regulations. > > The issue is only to do with future calls and calls that are not > relevant to the current auction. Your question about how high we play > negative doubles is a good example. Our general answer -- against > typical overcalls -- is written on the SC per ACBL regulations. > However, if you play atypical overcalls, you will have to alert them > when you make them, and we are fully entitled to vary our negative > double agreements accordingly. I don't see anything giving you the > right to ask about our agreements against hypothetical future > calls. Or > perhaps you can ask, but we can answer "It depends on the meaning of > your calls." Let's not confuse selecting methods with disclosing them. 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. 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. > The "irrelevant calls" part becomes relevant when someone misbids. The > WBFLC says that you are not entitled to ask about our responses to > Blackwood unless we've used Blackwood, but you can find the normal > ones > by looking at our SC. 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? Substance and manner of disclosure are two entirely separate things, and as much as I have criticized the WBFLC in the past I remain confident that they understand the difference, at least when they choose to. TFLB sets forth the substance of required disclosure; 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. Put another way, if a player is entitled by law to a particular piece of knowledge, the second sentence of L40A1(b) requires the RA to establish some mechanism by which he might obtain it. >> There is no authority to decide that the "manner >> in which this shall be done" is "not at all". > > I'm afraid we disagree here. There is certainly authority to limit > disclosure on SCs or forbid them altogether. To the extent that's > done, > and when questions are limited, the result will be "not at all." I > personally believe "not at all" should apply only to the case of > hypothetical future calls, but as we've seen, official opinion is > against me. We clearly disagree. 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". He may be right. But as soon as we admit the possibility that "not at all" might apply under any circumstance, then the Kaplan doctrine is no more. 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. Which would trouble me a lot less were I convinced that the WBFLC, when they drove a stake through its heart (in Beijing or wherever) understood that they were inflicting a fatal injury. But 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. Do they expect us to believe that L40A1(b) is just resting? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Fri Oct 23 17:34:25 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:34:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:05:11 PDT." Message-ID: <200910231523.IAA01337@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > My eighth-grade nun told us, "Don't be confused by the fact that > 'were' is past indicative. It is present subjunctive, not past > subjunctive." My ninth-grade English teacher gave us an assignment to mark all the prepositional phrases, and I got points taken off because in the sentence "I needed to go to the store", I didn't mark the phrase "to go". When I asked her after class about it, saying I believed this was an infinitive phrase and not a prepositional phrase, she gave back the points that got taken but said "well, we don't want to confuse the rest of the class". And this was an *honors* ninth-grade English class, composed of students who were in the gifted program. Your eighth-grade nun was talking about "past indicative" and "past subjunctive"? I doubt my ninth-grade teacher could even pronounce those. Sigh.... maybe this isn't entirely fair because this particular teacher did not belong in this particular teaching job (and the head of our high-school English department had been trying for years to get her transferred out). But it does say something about how far our standards have fallen. (This was in 1974.) I suppose that in ten years, I will be thrilled if kids graduate from high school able to write the words "for" and "you" instead of using the text-message abbreviations, LOL... well, not really, more like COL... -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 23 17:59:17 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:59:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar In-Reply-To: <200910231523.IAA01337@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:05:11 PDT." <200910231523.IAA01337@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000801ca53f9$c6970ab0$53c52010$@no> On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Marv wrote: > > > My eighth-grade nun told us, "Don't be confused by the fact that > > 'were' is past indicative. It is present subjunctive, not past > > subjunctive." > > My ninth-grade English teacher gave us an assignment to mark all the > prepositional phrases, and I got points taken off because in the sentence "I > needed to go to the store", I didn't mark the phrase "to go". When I asked her > after class about it, saying I believed this was an infinitive phrase and not a > prepositional phrase, she gave back the points that got taken but said "well, we > don't want to confuse the rest of the class". And this was an *honors* ninth-grade > English class, composed of students who were in the gifted program. Your eighth- > grade nun was talking about "past indicative" and "past subjunctive"? I doubt my > ninth-grade teacher could even pronounce those. > > Sigh.... maybe this isn't entirely fair because this particular teacher did not belong > in this particular teaching job (and the head of our high-school English department > had been trying for years to get her transferred out). But it does say something > about how far our standards have fallen. (This was in 1974.) I suppose that in > ten years, I will be thrilled if kids graduate from high school able to write the words > "for" and "you" instead of using the text-message abbreviations, LOL... well, not > really, more like COL... > > -- Adam I still remember when I once in an English composition had written something like: "He saw a man kneeling down as if he were looking for something". There was no correction when I received it back but I suddenly got thinking and approached my teacher with a question if this was really correct English grammar. I knew that "he was" is correct but had automatically written "as if he were" because that sounded right to me? My teacher wasn't convincingly sure either, but agreed that she had not reacted when reading it. (This must have been around 1953, during my second or third year of learning English for my first foreign language, so the grade can't have been much high.) Regards Sven From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Fri Oct 23 18:37:50 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:37:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <200910231523.IAA01337@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001801ca53ff$30e5e8a0$2401a8c0@p41600> I remember in junior school (50's) being docked a mark for spelling "north" without a capital "N". I argued with teacher for so long that she hauled me off to the head and I got 3 strokes of the cane!!! Now there's an idea for the next rule book. lnb > Marv wrote: > > > My eighth-grade nun told us, "Don't be confused by the fact that > > 'were' is past indicative. It is present subjunctive, not past > > subjunctive." > > My ninth-grade English teacher gave us an assignment to mark all the > prepositional phrases, and I got points taken off because in the > sentence "I needed to go to the store", I didn't mark the phrase "to > go". When I asked her after class about it, saying I believed this > was an infinitive phrase and not a prepositional phrase, she gave back > the points that got taken but said "well, we don't want to confuse the > rest of the class". And this was an *honors* ninth-grade English > class, composed of students who were in the gifted program. Your > eighth-grade nun was talking about "past indicative" and "past > subjunctive"? I doubt my ninth-grade teacher could even pronounce > those. > > Sigh.... maybe this isn't entirely fair because this particular > teacher did not belong in this particular teaching job (and the head > of our high-school English department had been trying for years to get > her transferred out). But it does say something about how far our > standards have fallen. (This was in 1974.) I suppose that in ten > years, I will be thrilled if kids graduate from high school able to > write the words "for" and "you" instead of using the text-message > abbreviations, LOL... well, not really, more like COL... > > -- Adam > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 3940 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 23 18:51:12 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:51:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net> References: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > SW> If the infraction is identical, why would the ruling or the > inferences > SW> from it be different at different tables? > >> From: Eric Landau >> Because the ruling, and therefore the inferences from it, depend on >> the OS's methods. > > I fear I'm missing something here. If the OS's at different tables > play > different methods, why would anyone expect that the rulings or > inferences from them or end results would be the same, other than by > coincidence? > >> I mean that for identical IBs on identical auctions, whether it >> will be easy or hard to guess IBer's intent depends on his side's >> methods. > > Quite true in general. > >> This is a problem because it means that a difference in >> methods not relevant to the infraction may provide a significant >> advantage to one OS (and corresponding disadvantage to the >> corresponding NOS) over another in otherwise identical circumstances. > > It's the "not relevant to the infraction" I'm having trouble with. > Let's say there are two IBs of 1C. One offender is playing Acol, and > the other is playing Precision. Inferences and the likely ruling will > be very different in the two cases. What's wrong with that? > > You can make the situation more complicated, but I guess what I'm not > seeing is how any difference in method that makes a difference in > interpretation of the IB is not "relevant to the infraction." 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? 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? What did the NOS at table 2 do to deserve the resulting advantage? I haven't thought too deeply about this particular example, and it may be flawed, but I'm confident that anyone who might find it inadequate can modify it appropriately so as to preserve its point. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 23 19:22:50 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:22:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A business of ferrets. In-Reply-To: <4AE1276E.8090100@nhcc.net> References: <4AE0CBB3.7040001@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE1276E.8090100@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1F5EE018-9A88-40DC-952D-9C7C99DD1BE4@starpower.net> On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:47 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> The question is to what information is a player entitled. Given a >> desire to ascertain something about his opponents' methods, he must >> be either entitled to the information or not. Whether he can, or >> does, obtain it by consulting an opponent's CC or by asking a >> question -- "the manner in which this shall be done" -- can't be >> relevant to the question of whether or not he should get it. > > Why does that follow? Once "fully and freely available" is gone, it's > hard to tell what restrictions apply. However, it's easy to imagine > (and indeed give examples) where the SC rules dictate disclosure that > would not be required in response to questions. As I wrote in the > other > thread, my personal belief is that this should apply only to > hypothetical future auctions, but the WBFLC apparently takes a > different > view. > > Ah... I have a good example, not even considering the WBFLC's > version of > limited disclosure. Suppose we bid Blackwood, and you as our opponent > are thinking of interfering. Let's say we're in a jurisdiction whose > SCs don't say anything relevant. Are you entitled to find out whether > we have agreements about dealing with Blackwood interference? (I > think > not.) I don't know. We (BLML collectively) may disagree on how to interpret the disclosure laws in TFLB, but we do not disagree over which laws need to be interpreted. Some believe that TFLB says that you are entitled by law to find out whether we have agreements about dealing with Blackwood interference, and some believe it says that you are not. But we all believe that if and when we come to a consensual understanding as to how a law is to be interpreted, then that is the law, and it is to be followed. (If we didn't believe that, there would be no justification for the existence of this forum.) > Now suppose instead this is in the ACBL, where our SC is supposed > to tell whether we use DOPI, DEPO, or something else over > interference. > Suppose we have nothing marked, and you take a chance and > intervene. > As it happens, we do have clear agreements but forgot to mark them, > and you get hammered. Are you entitled to redress? (I think you > are.) > If you disagree, please say why. The Law is the Law. Whatever it says, that's what it says. If it says you're entitled, you're entitled, and if it says you're not, you're not. This has nothing to do with supplementary regulations established by the RA about what may or must or may not appear on scorecards, nor about anything else external to TFLB. 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. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 23 19:47:56 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:47:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. In-Reply-To: References: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> Message-ID: <5C04F27C-5EC8-4911-A78F-EC81EA93C2DE@starpower.net> On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:52 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> The question is to what information is a player entitled. Given a >> desire to ascertain something about his opponents' methods, he must >> be either entitled to the information or not. Whether he can, or >> does, obtain it by consulting an opponent's CC or by asking a >> question -- "the manner in which this shall be done" -- can't be >> relevant to the question of whether or not he should get it. His >> rights to full disclosure cannot depend on which CC form his opponent >> uses or precisely how he chooses to fill it out, any more than it can >> depend on the legibility of his handwriting. If a player isn't >> entitled to the information, he cannot consult the CC for it; if he >> is entitled to it, he may ask. > > +=+ His questions during the auction and play are limited > to those allowed under Law 20F. Eric's quotation of "the > manner in which this shall be done" refers to what is to > happen "before commencing play against them". During > the auction and play questions about the auction must be > confined to what is relevant to the prior auction within the > terms of Law 20F. There is no other authority in the laws > for asking questions at this time; I think it is a moot point > whether a regulation could enable other questioning if it > were in place, purportedly under Law 40B2(a). I can not > say whether 'use' of the System Card would be deemed > to extend to raising questions during the auction and play. Eric's quotation of "the manner in which this shall be done" also refers to "to make available its partnership understandings", a phrase worthy of being read with the same degree of literalness as "before commencing play against them". If we read L40A1(b) strictly literally -- as opposed to, say, as a statement of the ideal embodied in the Kaplan doctrine -- we must come to the realization that at no time in all of recorded history, in no place on all of the Earth, has a single hand of duplicate bridge ever been played in compliance with that law, and never can nor ever will be. Which just might suggest that such a reading would be extraordinarily silly, perhaps even that it might not have been intended by those who wrote it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 23 20:05:37 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:05:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] [blml] A business of ferrets. In-Reply-To: References: <12CB474A7B0446EB8FB434520C643B0A@Mildred> Message-ID: <36F7163F-2323-441C-BF99-CE9556CBE5FF@starpower.net> On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:31 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> L40B3 speaks to varying one's partnership understandings, and is >> irrelevant here. > > +=+ Suppose an enquiry were made about the level to > which the opponents played negative doubles (were such > a question legal). Law 40B3 establishes that, unless > prohibited by regulation, triggered by the question asked > the partnership's understandings may forthwith vary in the > auction so that what would have been a negative double > is now for penalties. > To me that seemed to be something the enquirer > would want to take into consideration. 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? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 23 22:26:46 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:26:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax In-Reply-To: <4AE17C22.3040201@ulb.ac.be> References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> <4AE17C22.3040201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C587BE4-3DCA-46E5-99CC-DC87D21BBC6C@starpower.net> On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Marvin L French a ?crit : > >> When diiscussing a squeeze deal, wouldn't you say, "I was squeezed >> in hearts and spades"? Not if you're writing about it in BW, where >> Jeff would change that "in" to a "between." > > AG : the most logical would be 'with'. 'Between' is a good second > choice. > In French, we use 'entre' (between) or no preposition at all. I'm happy with either "in" or "between", but "with" would be wrong IMO. In normal American usage, you would be sqeezed "with" the suit being run, not the suits you hold. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 23 22:32:47 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:32:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax In-Reply-To: <4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> <4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2C94055A-8FC0-4FAC-9A58-011F3C979AA5@starpower.net> On Oct 23, 2009, at 6:40 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> 2009/10/23 Marvin L French : >> >>> When diiscussing a squeeze deal, wouldn't you say, "I was squeezed >>> in hearts and spades"? Not if you're writing about it in BW, where >>> Jeff would change that "in" to a "between." > > I also use "squeezed in", both in English and in German. > This is historically grown language usage. > Yes, "between" might be more logical, but "squeezed in" is > what bridge writers and bridge players have used > for decades. > > Then, not every squeeze is an ordinary two suited squeeze. > "I was squeezed between spades" for a one-suit squeeze > in spades looks ugly. Well, if you really want to get finicky, you should be sqeezed "in" one suit, "between" two suits, or "among" three suits. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 24 02:34:16 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:34:16 -0700 Subject: [BLML] English Grammar References: <200910231523.IAA01337@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Marv wrote: > >> My eighth-grade nun told us, "Don't be confused by the fact that >> 'were' is past indicative. It is present subjunctive, not past >> subjunctive." > >Your eighth-grade nun was talking about "past indicative" and "past > subjunctive"? I doubt my ninth-grade teacher could even pronounce > those. The Sisters of the Holy Child stressed the importance of English grammar, and did a good job teaching it. When I entered a secular high school it seemed to me that all my classmates were illiterate. This was back in 1940, with a long school day and a long school year. Our fairly well-behaved class worked hard, with loads of homework on every subject. Mother Clement even taught us how to calculate cube roots! Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 24 02:48:39 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:48:39 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP><4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <2C94055A-8FC0-4FAC-9A58-011F3C979AA5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0825CB32B4984833A98F435E8EFA9B04@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > > Well, if you really want to get finicky, you should be sqeezed > "in" > one suit, "between" two suits, or "among" three suits. I'm pretty sure that is Bridge World editorial policy, nice and neat. Most of us would use "in" for all three cases. I haven't seen enough votes for that to justify a complaint to Jeff. I also don't like BW's spelling out of bids in text instead of using suit symbols, which make for better readability. In a small space-limited publication that doesn't seem appropriate. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Oct 24 11:24:46 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:24:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: References: <4AE0A31F.8090307@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12278.70609@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4AE2C7DE.7050309@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > But as soon as we admit the possibility that "not at all" might apply > under any circumstance, then the Kaplan doctrine is no more. 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. > > Which would trouble me a lot less were I convinced that the WBFLC, > when they drove a stake through its heart (in Beijing or wherever) > understood that they were inflicting a fatal injury. But 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. > > Do they expect us to believe that L40A1(b) is just resting? > It's pining for the fjords! From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Oct 24 11:30:18 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:30:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights In-Reply-To: References: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4AE2C92A.1070109@skynet.be> Perfect example, Eric, and we've tried to convince the powers that be that the way they treat the new IB is not consistent, for quite some time now, but to no avail. Let's keep on hammering them with examples like this one. Grattan, I think this is a good example, and I would like to see it on the agenda in Philadelphia. Eric forgets one point even. In the case where 1C-p-1D shows hearts, the opponent does indeed get the information (indirectly) that IBer thought he was opening, but this information reaches opponent only if that opponent knows the laws. Is that fair? Herman. Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> SW> If the infraction is identical, why would the ruling or the >> inferences >> SW> from it be different at different tables? >> >>> From: Eric Landau >>> Because the ruling, and therefore the inferences from it, depend on >>> the OS's methods. >> I fear I'm missing something here. If the OS's at different tables >> play >> different methods, why would anyone expect that the rulings or >> inferences from them or end results would be the same, other than by >> coincidence? >> >>> I mean that for identical IBs on identical auctions, whether it >>> will be easy or hard to guess IBer's intent depends on his side's >>> methods. >> Quite true in general. >> >>> This is a problem because it means that a difference in >>> methods not relevant to the infraction may provide a significant >>> advantage to one OS (and corresponding disadvantage to the >>> corresponding NOS) over another in otherwise identical circumstances. >> It's the "not relevant to the infraction" I'm having trouble with. >> Let's say there are two IBs of 1C. One offender is playing Acol, and >> the other is playing Precision. Inferences and the likely ruling will >> be very different in the two cases. What's wrong with that? >> >> You can make the situation more complicated, but I guess what I'm not >> seeing is how any difference in method that makes a difference in >> interpretation of the IB is not "relevant to the infraction." > > 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? > > 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? What did the > NOS at table 2 do to deserve the resulting advantage? > > I haven't thought too deeply about this particular example, and it > may be flawed, but I'm confident that anyone who might find it > inadequate can modify it appropriately so as to preserve its point. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 24 14:03:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:03:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) References: <4AE0A31F.8090307@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12278.70609@nhcc.net> <4AE2C7DE.7050309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <609670E1019845B5B238CA14D64C9A7E@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 10:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) > Eric Landau wrote: >> >> But as soon as we admit the possibility that "not at all" might apply >> under any circumstance, then the Kaplan doctrine is no more. 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. >> >> Which would trouble me a lot less were I convinced that the WBFLC, >> when they drove a stake through its heart (in Beijing or wherever) >> understood that they were inflicting a fatal injury. But 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. >> >> Do they expect us to believe that L40A1(b) is just resting? >> +=+ I think we can all agree that this thread has now become tedious. To close my position, this is where I stand: 1. The full disclosure duty in 40A1 is a requirement to comply with the RA's specification and to do so before commencing play against the opponents. 2. The Regulating Authority may specify a System Card and, assuming it does so as is now normal, then has power to regulate its use. It is a moot point whether this can be deemed to include permitting questions under Law 20F1 about potential calls at a later stage of the auction. I doubt it. 3. Questions about calls asked during the auction and play may only extend to enquiry about the auction up to the point of enquiry and are limited to those matters specified in the interpretation issued in Beijing. This is not a new situation - it was the case under the 1987 and 1997 Codes. (A relevant alternative call is one that could have been made reasonably in place of the actual call in question were it not for partnership understanding, or perhaps individual style, as to the choice of action.) 4. The 'fully and freely' reference in the earlier Law 75 applied within the context of (1) above. It is the Regulating Authority (or previously the SO) that determines what constitutes satisfactory compliance. Remedies for shortfall lie in Laws 40B4 and 90A, not in Law 20F. Players inspecting opponents' SC may clarify anything they wish before commencing to play and refer to the Director if not content. 5. Comments about statements made by Edgar Kaplan's opinions are interesting but it was not his practice to obtain WBFLC approval for his statements and there were those in the committee who did not agree with all of them. When he departed the scene I was quickly told that "we want no more gurus" (sic) and after a discreet interval this was expressed in a WBFLC minute on 20th January 2000. All of us now express personal opinions when we comment without the support of a WBFLC minute. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 25 04:16:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:16:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP><4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <2C94055A-8FC0-4FAC-9A58-011F3C979AA5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <3584AD10395C4A5E9080F6F4F24A363A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge Syntax > > Well, if you really want to get finicky, you should be sqeezed "in" > one suit, "between" two suits, or "among" three suits. > +=+ My opinion is that 'squeezed in Spades', 'squeezed in Hearts and Spades' and 'squeezed in Clubs, Hearts and Spades' is the correct idiom in each case, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 25 22:09:00 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:09:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) In-Reply-To: <4AE2C92A.1070109@skynet.be> References: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net> <4AE2C92A.1070109@skynet.be> Message-ID: I too will attempt a summary. (1) What information may a player attempt to gather from the convention card? (2) If that information is not present (or it is incorrect), does the player receive an adjusted score when the player is damaged? The interesting case is relevant information the player is not entitled to via L20F1. WHAT INFORMATION? One easy answer is that the player may use any information the convention card. This is undercut by the WBFLC opinion Beijing, intending to declare that players cannot look at the convention card for the IMP tables. (In ACBL-land, the IMP tables are printed on the back of the convention card.) An undiscussed proposal answer is that players may use any information on the front of the convention card. Another undiscussed proposal is allowing the use of any information filled in on the convention card. The choice between these two would depend on if you wanted it to be legal to look at the convention card to determine if a bid was alertable. Grattan suggested that players can look at the convention card solely to discover the opponent's conventions and treatments. The difference between this and anything-filled-in-on-the-card proposal is that Grattan does not allow players could not consult the opponent's convention card to discover who they were playing against. His justification, I believe, is that the lawful purpose of the convention card it to provide information about conventions and treatments. Therefore any other use, not mentioned in the laws, is illegal. Hopefully, use of L40C3 (illegal memory aids) was abandoned for this discussion. It is extremely counterintuitive to think of the entire convention card as illegal according to L40C3, and it is way too complicated to then have to back through the laws to find out which laws take precedence over L40C3. Then the answer might not come out right, except if you adopt the tactic that the purpose of the convention card is to provide information about conventions and treatments, thereby coming to the same answer Grattan came to without L40C3. Unfortunately this does not prevent use of the opponent's convention card to determine the meaning of one's own bid. There are many legitimate ways a player might use the information about conventions and treatments. One is to try to infer the intended meaning of a bid and hence what the player is likely to have in his hand. Another is to follow the auction and know where it might be going. A third is to make inferences about a player's hand from his understanding of partner's bid. And stuck in with all of these legitimate uses is learning about the opponents conventions in order to learn the meaning of partner's bid when you have forgotten your convention and the opponents are playing the same convention. There is one other in-theory attractive possibility, that players may look at the convention card for any information they are entitled to (via L20F1). This has the small problem that some people can tolerate the Beijing restrictions on asking about a bid only by saying that the players can look on the convention card for relevant information they are not entitled to. It has the much larger problem that, at least for the Beijing version of L20F1, players are not entitled to information about bids that might be made in the future. In my opinion, they should be entitled to this information and L20F1 should be fixed to entitle players to this information. Then this possibility (you can only look to the convention card for information you are entitled to) becomes for feasible. As stands, it would disallow gathering information from the convention card prior to play. PROTECTION To answer this question quickly, there seem to be only two reasonable answers to when a player is protected from missing or incorrect information: (1) only for information the player is entitled to gather, or (2) only for information the player is entitled to know. Grattan proposed only for information the player is entitled to know. RECOMMENDATIONS To me, there are real ambiguities in the laws. For example, I don't know if I am allowed to look at the opponent's convention card to discover what is alertable, I wouldn't know how to rule, and I suspect it is illegal but I do not see the harm in it. As noted, I think the law should be changed. IMO, players had a right to know about future bids in the 1997 L20F1 and this is how bridge should be played. I also think that the information players are allowed to gather should be equal to the information they are entitled to which should be equal to what they receive protection against errors. That requires reworking the laws, if not now, then in 2017. Bob Frick From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 22:08:18 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:08:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax In-Reply-To: <0825CB32B4984833A98F435E8EFA9B04@MARVLAPTOP> References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> <4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <2C94055A-8FC0-4FAC-9A58-011F3C979AA5@starpower.net> <0825CB32B4984833A98F435E8EFA9B04@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: 2009/10/24 Marvin L French : > > From: "Eric Landau" >> >> Well, if you really want to get finicky, you should be sqeezed >> "in" >> one suit, "between" two suits, or "among" three suits. > > I'm pretty sure that is Bridge World editorial policy, nice and > neat. > > Most of us would use "in" for all three cases. I haven't seen enough > votes for that to justify a complaint to Jeff. > > I also don't like BW's spelling out of bids in text instead of using > suit symbols, which make for better readability. In a small > space-limited publication that doesn't seem appropriate. And I don't like BW's presentation of the auction in their hand diagrams, starting with south to the left, in stead of west. Strongly prefer the latter. > > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 25 23:39:40 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:39:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary addendum) In-Reply-To: References: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net> <4AE2C92A.1070109@skynet.be> Message-ID: Eric has argued that there was once full disclosure of all relevant information and that he would like to play bridge that way. So would I. As far as I know the ACBL still adopts this policy. IMO, the 1997 L20F1 supports full disclosure, as did the 1997 L40C. Grattan does not see any change from 1997 to 2007 or from 2007 to Beijing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 25 23:22:01 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:22:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A business of ferrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0DBD6445FD764306B53D5E8C38938F5A@Mildred> Message-ID: Alexander Pope (1688-1744): Old politicians chew on wisdom past, And totter on in business to the last. Steve Willner, 23rd October: >>>Once "fully and freely available" is gone, it's hard to tell >>>what restrictions apply. Grattan Endicott, 23rd October: >>+=+ I have been trying to think where the phrase "fully and >>freely available" appears (or once appeared) in the laws. I >>do not recall seeing it there. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Repealed 1997 Law 75A (Special Partnership Agreements): "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." Grattan Endicott, 24th October: >+=+ I think we can all agree that this thread has now become >tedious. Richard Hills, 26th October: We can all agree? Unanimous agreement on blml is as common as unanimous agreement on The Bridge World's Master Solver's Club. Grattan Endicott, 24th October: >To close my position, this is where I stand: >1. The full disclosure duty in 40A1 is a requirement to comply >with the RA's specification and to do so before commencing >play against the opponents. Richard Hills, 26th October: I agree that this is what the 2007 Lawbook says now. Grattan Endicott, 24th October: >..... >4. The 'fully and freely' reference in the earlier Law 75 >applied within the context of (1) above. Richard Hills, 26th October: I disagree, instead siding with Steve Willner in believing that the deletion of "fully and freely available" was a substantive change to Law. But this is a moot point; players and Directors must obey the current 2007 Lawbook, with the repealed 1997 Lawbook having no relevance other than for bridge historians. Grattan Endicott, 24th October: >It is the Regulating Authority (or previously the SO) that >determines what constitutes satisfactory compliance. Remedies >for shortfall lie in Laws 40B4 and 90A, not in Law 20F. Richard Hills, 26th October: I quibble. Almost all partnerships have a greater number of explicit and implicit understandings than can ever possibly be listed on their System Cards. Therefore, if a call based on a legal but unlisted understanding occurs at the table, then the Regulating Authority may not prohibit a correctly phrased Law 20F1 question about that call. So in that sense Law 20F1 is much more powerful than Law 40 and also much more powerful than the Regulating Authority. But what constitutes a "correctly phrased" Law 20F1 question? Grattan Endicott, 24th October: >3. Questions about calls asked during the auction and play may >only extend to enquiry about the auction up to the point of >enquiry and are limited to those matters specified in the >interpretation issued in Beijing. >..... >All of us now express personal opinions when we comment without >the support of a WBFLC minute. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, 26th October As the Vicar of Bray, I am compelled to set aside my personal opinion on what a "correctly phrased" Law 20F1 question is. I do note, however, that the 2009 Sao Paulo WBF LC minutes recorded a lengthy debate over two sessions before (eventually) the WBF LC reaffirmed their 2008 Beijing decision on their interpretation of Law 20F1. So my new Vicar of Bray personal opinion may change yet again in 2010, if another lengthy WBF LC debate causes a modification to the WBF LC view about Law 20F1. 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 Sun Oct 25 23:41:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:41:40 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) References: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net><4AE2C92A.1070109@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) > One easy answer is that the player may use any information > the convention card. This is undercut by the WBFLC opinion Beijing, > +=+ The Beijing minute does not stop a player looking at the convention card as Law 40B(c) allows. The minute is about asking questions. +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Oct 25 23:51:01 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:51:01 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP><4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><2C94055A-8FC0-4FAC-9A58-011F3C979AA5@starpower.net><0825CB32B4984833A98F435E8EFA9B04@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <7F3B828F3E0343AD9DE24D746AE36EDC@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Harald Skj?ran" > > And I don't like BW's presentation of the auction in their hand > diagrams, starting with south to the left, in stead of west. > Strongly > prefer the latter. To agree with standard map orientation? When A. Moyse Jr was editor, the auction diagrams started with the first bidder on the left, which I strongly prefer. Evidently when Kaplan took over as editor he changed that to having south on the left, using dashes to fill in non-calls (which can result in an extra line). I'll add that to my growing list of gripes. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Oct 26 00:00:01 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:00:01 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP><4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><2C94055A-8FC0-4FAC-9A58-011F3C979AA5@starpower.net><0825CB32B4984833A98F435E8EFA9B04@MARVLAPTOP> <7F3B828F3E0343AD9DE24D746AE36EDC@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000501ca55c6$f2408280$2401a8c0@p41600> all you need is west to the left of east. unlike robson in the times ********************** I married Miss Right, just didn't know that her first name was "always". ********************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge Syntax > > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > > > > And I don't like BW's presentation of the auction in their hand > > diagrams, starting with south to the left, in stead of west. > > Strongly > > prefer the latter. > > To agree with standard map orientation? > > When A. Moyse Jr was editor, the auction diagrams started with the > first bidder on the left, which I strongly prefer. > > Evidently when Kaplan took over as editor he changed that to having > south on the left, using dashes to fill in non-calls (which can > result in an extra line). > > I'll add that to my growing list of gripes. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 3971 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Oct 26 02:36:23 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:36:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax In-Reply-To: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Prepositions which go with specific verbs are idiomatic, and thus determined by usage; this is why you can live either on Church Street or in Church Street, depending on which side of the pond you live on. Bridge players say, "I was squeezed in three suits", so that is the correct usage. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:05 AM Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax > Okay, here's another Bridge World practice I dislike, which is > now spreading to other bridge publications, at least in ACBL-land. > > When diiscussing a squeeze deal, wouldn't you say, "I was squeezed > in hearts and spades"? Not if you're writing about it in BW, where > Jeff would change that "in" to a "between." > > Now, that is more logical, but as Mother Mary Clement taught us, > we should not question illogical syntax that is employed by not only > the masses but also by good writers and speakers. Such things are > called ideomatic expressions, she said, and they must not be > questioned. > > Let's have a vote on that, please. > > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 26 04:50:37 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:50:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) In-Reply-To: References: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net> <4AE2C92A.1070109@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:41:40 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Perhaps the straight and > narrow path would be wider > if more people used it". > [Kay Ingram] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:09 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) > > >> One easy answer is that the player may use any information >> the convention card. This is undercut by the WBFLC opinion > Beijing, >> > +=+ The Beijing minute does not stop a player looking at > the convention card as Law 40B(c) allows. The minute is > about asking questions. +=+ I was thinking of this portion of the minutes 16A1(d) allows the player use of his memory of information in the laws and regulations. It does not authorize him to look during the auction and play at the printed regulations, the law book, or anyone?s scorecard or the backs of bidding cards etc. as (Law 40C3(a)) an aid to memory. For system card and notes see Law 20G2. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 26 06:50:19 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:50:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, page 245: "But the question for our purpose is whether the broad pattern of world history would have been altered significantly if some genius inventor had not been born at a particular place and time. The answer is clear: there has never been such a person. All recognized famous inventors had capable predecessors and successors and made their improvements at a time when society was capable of using their product." Robert Frick: >One easy answer is that the player may use any information on the >convention card. This is undercut by the WBFLC opinion Beijing [2008]: "16A1(d) allows the player use of his memory of information in the laws and regulations. It does not authorize him to look during the auction and play at the printed regulations, the law book, ***or anyone's scorecard*** or the backs of bidding cards etc. as (Law 40C3(a)) an aid to memory. For system card and notes see Law 20G2." [***RJBH emphasis***] Richard Hills: Bob refers to "the" convention card (the traditional ACBL name for System Card). But what if a Regulating Authority has an "ain't broke don't fix it" tradition of combining two legally different documents on the obverse and reverse of just one physical object? Note that a score card (and associated imp table) does not fit the Law 40B2(a) definition of a System Card as "for the prior listing of a partnership's understandings". So yes, even in the ACBL one cannot use information (such as the imp table) merely because it is written on the opponents' score card reverse; one is only permitted to use the opponents' System Card obverse. Eric Landau discussing a universal principle in a parallel thread: [snip] >>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. Richard Hills discussing hero worship: "But the question for our purpose is whether the broad pattern of the history of the Duplicate Bridge Laws would have been altered significantly if the genius innovator Edgar Kaplan had not been born at a particular place and time. The answer is clear....." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 26 10:01:34 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:01:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax In-Reply-To: References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000801ca561a$eb1faae0$c15f00a0$@no> On Behalf Of David Grabiner > Prepositions which go with specific verbs are idiomatic, and thus determined by > usage; this is why you can live either on Church Street or in Church Street, > depending on which side of the pond you live on. Bridge players say, "I was > squeezed in three suits", so that is the correct usage. We have a similar situation in Norwegian: You live (or are temporarily) "in" some cities and "on" other cities, and there is no rule that can be used without exception to distinguish where to use one or the other preposition. The best rule that I have seen is "in" with cities or places along the coast (including fjords) and "on" with inland cities or places. Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 10:14:43 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:14:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax In-Reply-To: <000801ca561a$eb1faae0$c15f00a0$@no> References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> <000801ca561a$eb1faae0$c15f00a0$@no> Message-ID: 2009/10/26 Sven Pran : > On Behalf Of David Grabiner > >> Prepositions which go with specific verbs are idiomatic, and thus > determined by >> usage; this is why you can live either on Church Street or in Church > Street, >> depending on which side of the pond you live on. ?Bridge players say, "I > was >> squeezed in three suits", so that is the correct usage. > > We have a similar situation in Norwegian: You live (or are temporarily) "in" > some cities and "on" other cities, and there is no rule that can be used > without exception to distinguish where to use one or the other preposition. > The best rule that I have seen is "in" with cities or places along the coast > (including fjords) and "on" with inland cities or places. There's also local differenses. Most people in southern Norway would say "in" Mo i Rana, but where I come from (close to Mo i Rana), we say "on" Mo i Rana. Which, btw, is situated in the bottom of a fjord. > > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 26 10:40:01 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:40:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax In-Reply-To: References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> <000801ca561a$eb1faae0$c15f00a0$@no> Message-ID: <4AE56E71.1020103@skynet.be> Sorry Harald, could not resist: Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/10/26 Sven Pran : >> On Behalf Of David Grabiner >> >>> Prepositions which go with specific verbs are idiomatic, and thus >> determined by >>> usage; this is why you can live either on Church Street or in Church >> Street, >>> depending on which side of the pond you live on. Bridge players say, "I >> was >>> squeezed in three suits", so that is the correct usage. >> We have a similar situation in Norwegian: You live (or are temporarily) "in" >> some cities and "on" other cities, and there is no rule that can be used >> without exception to distinguish where to use one or the other preposition. >> The best rule that I have seen is "in" with cities or places along the coast >> (including fjords) and "on" with inland cities or places. > > There's also local differenses. Most people in southern Norway would > say "in" Mo i Rana, but where I come from (close to Mo i Rana), we say > "on" Mo i Rana. Which, btw, is situated in the bottom of a fjord. In English, most people would say "on" a fjord". "In" a fjord would be under water. Although to be fair, you did not say "at" the bottom of the fjord. And I do realize that Norwegians have a different view of fjords. To them, it's a lot of coastline, to us, it's a lot of water. Probably because we still remember the norseman from a milenium ago. Herman. >> Sven >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 26 11:07:10 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:07:10 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> <000801ca561a$eb1faae0$c15f00a0$@no> <4AE56E71.1020103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <446ACB78F6DE448A8395683A7CFF678A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:40 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge Syntax > In English, most people would say "on" a fjord". "In" a fjord would be > under water. Although to be fair, you did not say "at" the bottom of the > fjord. > And I do realize that Norwegians have a different view of fjords. To > them, it's a lot of coastline, to us, it's a lot of water. > Probably because we still remember the norseman from a milenium ago. > +=+ To me a fjord is a geographical feature. It extends from the top of the mountainsides at its edge to the bottom of the waters that it contains. If I said "in a fjord" it would refer to placement within these confines, whether in or on the water or in the air. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 26 11:19:43 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:19:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) References: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net><4AE2C92A.1070109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <630AEACB3E5A4A5BBF42B82993C74D66@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 3:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) > On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:41:40 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> +=+ The Beijing minute does not stop a player looking at >> the convention card as Law 40B(c) allows. The minute is >> about asking questions. +=+ > > I was thinking of this portion of the minutes > > 16A1(d) allows the player use of his memory of information > in the laws and regulations. It does not authorize him to look > during the auction and play at the printed regulations, the > law book, or anyone?s scorecard or the backs of bidding > cards etc. as (Law 40C3(a)) an aid to memory. For system > card and notes see Law 20G2. > +=+ Then we are at cross purposes. I referred to the right of a player under Law 40B2(c)(iii) to look at his opponents' system card at his turn to call or play. The above minute and Law 20G2 are concerned with a player's own system card. and his consultation of it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 26 12:25:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:25:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP> <000801ca561a$eb1faae0$c15f00a0$@no><4AE56E71.1020103@skynet.be> <446ACB78F6DE448A8395683A7CFF678A@Mildred> Message-ID: <7DA7538938D74239B40BA2EF57440AFA@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge Syntax > +=+ To me a fjord is a geographical feature. It extends from > the top of the mountainsides at its edge to the bottom of the waters > that it contains. If I said "in a fjord" it would refer to placement > within these confines, whether in or on the water or in the air. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ "There were fish and a fishing vessel in the fjord, and in the fjord, too, there was a helicopter hovering. From it a naturalist was observing birds nesting on the ledges in the fjord." +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 26 14:53:15 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:53:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) In-Reply-To: <630AEACB3E5A4A5BBF42B82993C74D66@Mildred> References: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net> <4AE2C92A.1070109@skynet.be> <630AEACB3E5A4A5BBF42B82993C74D66@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:19:43 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > "Perhaps the straight and > narrow path would be wider > if more people used it". > [Kay Ingram] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 3:50 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) > > >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:41:40 -0500, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> +=+ The Beijing minute does not stop a player looking at >>> the convention card as Law 40B(c) allows. The minute is >>> about asking questions. +=+ >> >> I was thinking of this portion of the minutes >> >> 16A1(d) allows the player use of his memory of information >> in the laws and regulations. It does not authorize him to look >> during the auction and play at the printed regulations, the >> law book, or anyone?s scorecard or the backs of bidding >> cards etc. as (Law 40C3(a)) an aid to memory. For system >> card and notes see Law 20G2. >> > +=+ Then we are at cross purposes. I referred to the right > of a player under Law 40B2(c)(iii) to look at his opponents' > system card at his turn to call or play. The above minute and > Law 20G2 are concerned with a player's own system card. > and his consultation of it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Thanks. Then I correct myself -- there is no WBFLC minute contradicting the possibility that a player may consult the opponent's convention card for any reason. This would be a practical position, as it is difficult to enforce anything different. The only information on the ACBL convention card that does not involve conventions and treatments is (1) players' names, (2) what is or is not alertable, (3) standard leads from card combinations, and (4) perhaps some derivable information about what is standard and what is not (e.g., ROPI over ROPE, jump overcalls as weak). From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 26 14:32:36 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:32:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AE1B051.1010208@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> <4AE1B051.1010208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> We accept that "asking for aces" is equivalent to "systemically shows >> a hand that wants to know how many aces I have". That this is >> embedded in our terminology is demonstrated by the fact that asking >> for aces when when doesn't care about the answer is generally >> referred to as "psyching Blackwood". > > AG : this syllogism is put to the test by the case of those who play > 2NT-3NT as artificial and need to bid 3C first, ostensibly asking for > majors, to land in 3NT. > 3C is asking for majors, yet it doesn't show the desire to find the > answer, and it isn't a psyche because it's systemic. I don't think this is a valid analogy, at least for the ACBL, as the agreement Alain describes would be treated as an unusual partnership understanding (i.e. 3C would be alertable). Psyching Blackwood, by definition, involves no special agreement. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 26 14:44:17 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:44:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> Message-ID: <66255E67-9C5B-4AE7-BE31-961D2D3EEAA5@starpower.net> On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:12:04 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> The one wrinkle in all this is relays (in the proper sense: things >>> like >>> Stayman and Blackwood). Those are really hard to explain because >>> they >>> cover so many different hand types. In practice, "asking for ..." >>> works >>> OK for the familiar ones, but it isn't strictly correct. >> >> We accept that "asking for aces" is equivalent to "systemically shows >> a hand that wants to know how many aces I have". That this is >> embedded in our terminology is demonstrated by the fact that asking >> for aces when when doesn't care about the answer is generally >> referred to as "psyching Blackwood". > > So, I open 1NT, the opponents overcall, and my partner bids 2NT > Lebensohl. > I am supposed to explain this how? I am not sure. Lebensohl -- > fast, easy, > informative -- isn't allowed. > > Relay to 3 Cl? Steve said it was a puppet, not a relay. It seems > neither I > nor my opponents are likely to understand this distinction and this > hardly > seems to fit the intent of the regulation to avoid jargon. > > "Telling me to bid 3 Cl" seems to be the correct answer. It is the > exact > same answer I give if we use that bid to show a club suit and stop in > clubs. > > According to Eric I am not required to tell them Lebensohl. That > fits with > the notion that I do not need to tell them about future bids. All > they get > to find out know is that my partner is asking me to bid 3 Cl. > > Or they can look on my convention card, where the ACBL has put a > box for > me to check called Lebensohl. The ACBL permits use of those names that appear on the ACBL CC (along with Blackwood, which does not). But even did they not, how hard is it to describe? "For play at the 3-level in..., or invitational in..., or stopper-showing for 3NT, to be clarified by her rebid." Or whatever. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 26 16:01:16 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:01:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <66255E67-9C5B-4AE7-BE31-961D2D3EEAA5@starpower.net> References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> <66255E67-9C5B-4AE7-BE31-961D2D3EEAA5@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:44:17 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:12:04 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >>> >>>> The one wrinkle in all this is relays (in the proper sense: things >>>> like >>>> Stayman and Blackwood). Those are really hard to explain because >>>> they >>>> cover so many different hand types. In practice, "asking for ..." >>>> works >>>> OK for the familiar ones, but it isn't strictly correct. >>> >>> We accept that "asking for aces" is equivalent to "systemically shows >>> a hand that wants to know how many aces I have". That this is >>> embedded in our terminology is demonstrated by the fact that asking >>> for aces when when doesn't care about the answer is generally >>> referred to as "psyching Blackwood". >> >> So, I open 1NT, the opponents overcall, and my partner bids 2NT >> Lebensohl. >> I am supposed to explain this how? I am not sure. Lebensohl -- >> fast, easy, >> informative -- isn't allowed. >> >> Relay to 3 Cl? Steve said it was a puppet, not a relay. It seems >> neither I >> nor my opponents are likely to understand this distinction and this >> hardly >> seems to fit the intent of the regulation to avoid jargon. >> >> "Telling me to bid 3 Cl" seems to be the correct answer. It is the >> exact >> same answer I give if we use that bid to show a club suit and stop in >> clubs. >> >> According to Eric I am not required to tell them Lebensohl. That >> fits with >> the notion that I do not need to tell them about future bids. All >> they get >> to find out know is that my partner is asking me to bid 3 Cl. >> >> Or they can look on my convention card, where the ACBL has put a >> box for >> me to check called Lebensohl. > > The ACBL permits use of those names that appear on the ACBL CC (along > with Blackwood, which does not). But even did they not, how hard is > it to describe? "For play at the 3-level in..., or invitational > in..., or stopper-showing for 3NT, to be clarified by her rebid." Or > whatever. Is this a rhetorical question? You are asking me to compare saying "Lebensohl" or "puppet" versus saying "For play at the 3-level in..., or invitational in..., or stopper-showing for 3NT, to be clarified by her rebid?" And I have to figure out for myself what goes where the dots are? Hmm, I will vote for "Lebensohl" or "puppet" being far easier. Easier enough that I don't think I have ever heard someone offer the third explanation without some prompting. But you are missing the point. As a listener, if I have to process that whole long explanation, I might just turn off. But if I do pay attention, at some point I will realize they are talking about Lebensohl. And, just to check, I will probably ask if they are playing Lebensohl just to make sure I understand. It is a whole lot simpler on me if they just say "Lebensohl". If I don't know what Lebensohl is, I then ask. Same thing, if the opps show any indication they don't know what say "Bergen raise" means, then I offer an explanation. Or if they look like they won't know, then I explain. But the usually response to a query is "Bergen raise" and everyone is happy. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 15:55:45 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:55:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> <66255E67-9C5B-4AE7-BE31-961D2D3EEAA5@starpower.net> Message-ID: 2009/10/26 Robert Frick : > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:44:17 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:12:04 -0400, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >>>> >>>>> The one wrinkle in all this is relays (in the proper sense: things >>>>> like >>>>> Stayman and Blackwood). ?Those are really hard to explain because >>>>> they >>>>> cover so many different hand types. ?In practice, "asking for ..." >>>>> works >>>>> OK for the familiar ones, but it isn't strictly correct. >>>> >>>> We accept that "asking for aces" is equivalent to "systemically shows >>>> a hand that wants to know how many aces I have". ?That this is >>>> embedded in our terminology is demonstrated by the fact that asking >>>> for aces when when doesn't care about the answer is generally >>>> referred to as "psyching Blackwood". >>> >>> So, I open 1NT, the opponents overcall, and my partner bids 2NT >>> Lebensohl. >>> I am supposed to explain this how? I am not sure. Lebensohl -- >>> fast, easy, >>> informative -- isn't allowed. >>> >>> Relay to 3 Cl? Steve said it was a puppet, not a relay. It seems >>> neither I >>> nor my opponents are likely to understand this distinction and this >>> hardly >>> seems to fit the intent of the regulation to avoid jargon. >>> >>> "Telling me to bid 3 Cl" seems to be the correct answer. It is the >>> exact >>> same answer I give if we use that bid to show a club suit and stop in >>> clubs. >>> >>> According to Eric I am not required to tell them Lebensohl. That >>> fits with >>> the notion that I do not need to tell them about future bids. All >>> they get >>> to find out know is that my partner is asking me to bid 3 Cl. >>> >>> Or they can look on my convention card, where the ACBL has put a >>> box for >>> me to check called Lebensohl. >> >> The ACBL permits use of those names that appear on the ACBL CC (along >> with Blackwood, which does not). ?But even did they not, how hard is >> it to describe? ?"For play at the 3-level in..., or invitational >> in..., or stopper-showing for 3NT, to be clarified by her rebid." ?Or >> whatever. > > Is this a rhetorical question? You are asking me to compare saying > "Lebensohl" or "puppet" versus saying "For play at the 3-level in..., or > invitational in..., or stopper-showing for 3NT, to be clarified by her > rebid?" And I have to figure out for myself what goes where the dots are? This depends upon whom you're playing. I normally say lebensohl, puppet Stayman etc., if I play against opponents I know will know what this is, or in a field where I expect all to be in the know. However, if I play against opponents I know, or expect, don't have a clue about these things, I explain in a way they should know. Remember, some aren't up to asking. > > Hmm, I will vote for "Lebensohl" or "puppet" being far easier. Easier > enough that I don't think I have ever heard someone offer the third > explanation without some prompting. > > But you are missing the point. As a listener, if I have to process that > whole long explanation, I might just turn off. But if I do pay attention, > at some point I will realize they are talking about Lebensohl. And, just > to check, I will probably ask if they are playing Lebensohl just to make > sure I understand. It is a whole lot simpler on me if they just say > "Lebensohl". If I don't know what Lebensohl is, I then ask. > > Same thing, if the opps show any indication they don't know what say > "Bergen raise" means, then I offer an explanation. Or if they look like > they won't know, then I explain. But the usually response to a query is > "Bergen raise" and everyone is happy. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Oct 26 16:27:43 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:27:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> <4AE1B051.1010208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AE5BFEF.4080604@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >>> We accept that "asking for aces" is equivalent to "systemically shows >>> a hand that wants to know how many aces I have". That this is >>> embedded in our terminology is demonstrated by the fact that asking >>> for aces when when doesn't care about the answer is generally >>> referred to as "psyching Blackwood". >>> >> AG : this syllogism is put to the test by the case of those who play >> 2NT-3NT as artificial and need to bid 3C first, ostensibly asking for >> majors, to land in 3NT. >> 3C is asking for majors, yet it doesn't show the desire to find the >> answer, and it isn't a psyche because it's systemic. >> > > I don't think this is a valid analogy, at least for the ACBL, as the > agreement Alain describes would be treated as an unusual partnership > understanding (i.e. 3C would be alertable). Psyching Blackwood, by > definition, involves no special agreement. > > AG : indeed. your case is not my case. And that's why psyching an asking bid and not needing the answer are two different things. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 26 16:31:05 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:31:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <66255E67-9C5B-4AE7-BE31-961D2D3EEAA5@starpower.net> References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> <66255E67-9C5B-4AE7-BE31-961D2D3EEAA5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4AE5C0B9.5040706@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > The ACBL permits use of those names that appear on the ACBL CC (along > with Blackwood, which does not). But even did they not, how hard is > it to describe? "For play at the 3-level in..., or invitational > in..., or stopper-showing for 3NT, to be clarified by her rebid." Or > whatever. > AG : indeed. There are so many versions of lebensohl that just this name is insufficient. And describing a bid by the responses to it isn't allowed (UI and all those things). So why don't you just describe the main possibilities ? Would you consider "forces me to bid 2D" a complete description for a strong 2C opening with 2D an automatic response ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 26 16:41:46 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:41:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining forcing bids (theory, funny status) In-Reply-To: <609670E1019845B5B238CA14D64C9A7E@Mildred> References: <4AE0A31F.8090307@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12278.70609@nhcc.net> <4AE2C7DE.7050309@skynet.be> <609670E1019845B5B238CA14D64C9A7E@Mildred> Message-ID: <1F2E4B1F-63D9-4D69-BB5C-ABE9D69EB8DE@starpower.net> On Oct 24, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Grattan wrote: >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> But as soon as we admit the possibility that "not at all" might >>> apply >>> under any circumstance, then the Kaplan doctrine is no more. 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. >>> >>> Which would trouble me a lot less were I convinced that the WBFLC, >>> when they drove a stake through its heart (in Beijing or wherever) >>> understood that they were inflicting a fatal injury. But 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. >>> >>> Do they expect us to believe that L40A1(b) is just resting? > > +=+ I think we can all agree that this thread has now become tedious. > To close my position, this is where I stand: > 1. The full disclosure duty in 40A1 is a requirement to comply with > the RA's specification and to do so before commencing play against > the opponents. > 2. The Regulating Authority may specify a System Card and, assuming > it does so as is now normal, then has power to regulate its use. It > is a > moot point whether this can be deemed to include permitting questions > under Law 20F1 about potential calls at a later stage of the > auction. I > doubt it. I don't think this is a moot point at all. I think it's the heart of the matter being discussed. Not whether this can be deemed to include permitting questions under L20F1 (a purely semantic quibble), but whether this can be deemed to include permitting questions, period (perhaps, presumably, per L40A1(b)). > 3. Questions about calls asked during the auction and play may only > extend to enquiry about the auction up to the point of enquiry and > are limited to those matters specified in the interpretation issued in > Beijing. Doesn't that depend on the resolution of #2? Grattan's argument is based entirely on the text of L20F1. The potential counterargument is based on what appear to be a flat contradiction between the requirements of that law and those of L40A1 (b). Perhaps he sees the nails holding the latter to its perch, but I don't. > This is not a new situation - it was the case under the 1987 > and 1997 Codes. (A relevant alternative call is one that could have > been made reasonably in place of the actual call in question were it > not for partnership understanding, or perhaps individual style, as to > the choice of action.) A "relevant alternative call", whatever it is, is new to the laws in 2008. The 1987 and 1997 coded referred to "relevant calls". To say that this does not present a new situation is to argue that the word "alternative" has no meaning whatsoever, that it was introduced into the 2008 lawbook merely to befuddle the reader into thinking that something had changed. > 4. The 'fully and freely' reference in the earlier Law 75 applied > within > the context of (1) above. It is the Regulating Authority (or > previously > the SO) that determines what constitutes satisfactory compliance. > Remedies for shortfall lie in Laws 40B4 and 90A, not in Law 20F. > Players inspecting opponents' SC may clarify anything they wish > before commencing to play and refer to the Director if not content. > 5. Comments about statements made by Edgar Kaplan's opinions > are interesting but it was not his practice to obtain WBFLC approval > for his statements and there were those in the committee who did > not agree with all of them. When he departed the scene I was quickly > told that "we want no more gurus" (sic) and after a discreet interval > this was expressed in a WBFLC minute on 20th January 2000. All > of us now express personal opinions when we comment without the > support of a WBFLC minute. It sounds like the WBFLC, distressed at Mr. Kaplan's tendency to speak on the record as to the official policies of that body, solved the problem by deciding that nobody would speak on the record as to their policies ever again. So if Grattan, or anyone, can't cite an official minute, we can only learn of their "official" thinking by rumor. Meanwhile, I keep asking for anything from the official minutes that even vaguely suggests a conscious decision to reformulate disclosure policy in a manner different from that expostulated by Mr. Kaplan back in the days when it was not a crime to report the substance of the WBFLC's deliberations. Instead, I keep being told, "No, really, the Kaplan doctrine isn't the law any more, but do keep in mind that that's only an opinion because only some elusive 'official minute' [-- if such thing truly exists, which I'm very much coming to doubt --] can be trusted". To put it bluntly, stop telling us that you are merely express personal opinions as you comment without the support of a WBFLC minute, and produce the damned minute. Not the one from Beijing, as we have repeatedly been told that that was not a substantive change but rather written merely to clarify policy in place since 1987, but the one that explicitly implemented this rumored policy change, the one, hopefully, that will suggest that the abandonment of Mr. Kaplan's principles was anything other than an unintended consquence of a badly written law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 16:43:34 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:43:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AE5C0B9.5040706@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> <66255E67-9C5B-4AE7-BE31-961D2D3EEAA5@starpower.net> <4AE5C0B9.5040706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2009/10/26 Alain Gottcheiner : > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >> The ACBL permits use of those names that appear on the ACBL CC (along >> with Blackwood, which does not). ?But even did they not, how hard is >> it to describe? ?"For play at the 3-level in..., or invitational >> in..., or stopper-showing for 3NT, to be clarified by her rebid." ?Or >> whatever. >> > AG : indeed. There are so many versions of lebensohl that just this name > is insufficient. And describing a bid by the responses to it isn't > allowed (UI and all those things). So why don't you just describe the > main possibilities ? > Would you consider "forces me to bid 2D" a complete description for a > strong 2C opening with 2D an automatic response ? Nope. I'd explain it as strong and forcing, 22+ if balanced, forcing to 3M or game if unbalanced, normally 20+hcp, although we open 2C with weaker 1-suiters, and might open at the 1-level with some hands upto 23 hcp. (Actually, strong and forcing would be my normal explanation, the rest I add if they want to know more.) > > Best regards > > ?Alain > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 26 16:57:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:57:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) References: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net><4AE2C92A.1070109@skynet.be> <630AEACB3E5A4A5BBF42B82993C74D66@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) . >>> >> +=+ Then we are at cross purposes. I referred to the right >> of a player under Law 40B2(c)(iii) to look at his opponents' >> system card at his turn to call or play. The above minute and >> Law 20G2 are concerned with a player's own system card. >> and his consultation of it. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Thanks. Then I correct myself -- there is no WBFLC minute contradicting > the possibility that a player may consult the opponent's convention card > for any reason. > +=+ In relation to opponents' system, yes. Not as an aide memoire in any other respect in my opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 26 18:04:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:04:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights (attempted summary) In-Reply-To: References: <4AE0A349.20408@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE12436.5080209@nhcc.net><4AE2C92A.1070109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54A17797-7839-4F76-96E6-ECD60C80598A@starpower.net> On Oct 25, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" > >> One easy answer is that the player may use any information >> the convention card. This is undercut by the WBFLC opinion >> Beijing, > > > +=+ The Beijing minute does not stop a player looking at > the convention card as Law 40B(c) allows. The minute is > about asking questions. +=+ In other words, if I choose to write something on my CC that is not strictly required by the RA's CC regs, it becomes information my opponents are entitled to obtain during an auction, whereas if I do not, it may not. Are they entitled to it just because it's there, or may I deprive them of the information by making sure to write it illegibly, and refusing to read it to them (assuming, of course, that it's not a "relevant alternative call") if they inquire? As it is not required, may I include or remove it as I wish, so as to convey the advantage of being entitled to discover it only to those opponents I favor? I suppose not, since, if Grattan is correct, it would follow that putting anything on my CC beyond what is strictly required, at least if it's legible, would presumptively violate L72A. There are an uncountable number of ways to legitimately and properly fill out an ACBL (or, I would imagine, any other) convention card, and I cannot accept that my opponents' entitlement to disclosure of my partnership's agreements depends on the manner in which I choose to do so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 26 18:31:52 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:31:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: References: <4AE08243.6080108@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE11FE0.3090507@nhcc.net> <37650A02-13D5-45A7-8E08-E426F377C387@starpower.net> <66255E67-9C5B-4AE7-BE31-961D2D3EEAA5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <67B345BB-8989-4037-ADAC-958B87AB400E@starpower.net> On Oct 26, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:44:17 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> So, I open 1NT, the opponents overcall, and my partner bids 2NT >>> Lebensohl. >>> I am supposed to explain this how? I am not sure. Lebensohl -- >>> fast, easy, >>> informative -- isn't allowed. >>> >>> Relay to 3 Cl? Steve said it was a puppet, not a relay. It seems >>> neither I >>> nor my opponents are likely to understand this distinction and this >>> hardly >>> seems to fit the intent of the regulation to avoid jargon. >>> >>> "Telling me to bid 3 Cl" seems to be the correct answer. It is the >>> exact >>> same answer I give if we use that bid to show a club suit and >>> stop in >>> clubs. >>> >>> According to Eric I am not required to tell them Lebensohl. That >>> fits with >>> the notion that I do not need to tell them about future bids. All >>> they get >>> to find out know is that my partner is asking me to bid 3 Cl. >>> >>> Or they can look on my convention card, where the ACBL has put a >>> box for >>> me to check called Lebensohl. >> >> The ACBL permits use of those names that appear on the ACBL CC (along >> with Blackwood, which does not). But even did they not, how hard is >> it to describe? "For play at the 3-level in..., or invitational >> in..., or stopper-showing for 3NT, to be clarified by her rebid." Or >> whatever. > > Is this a rhetorical question? You are asking me to compare saying > "Lebensohl" or "puppet" versus saying "For play at the 3-level > in..., or > invitational in..., or stopper-showing for 3NT, to be clarified by her > rebid?" And I have to figure out for myself what goes where the > dots are? No; the elisions were needed only because the overcall wasn't specified. > Hmm, I will vote for "Lebensohl" or "puppet" being far easier. Easier > enough that I don't think I have ever heard someone offer the third > explanation without some prompting. Even "Lebensohl", not to mention "puppet", has variations, both "official" and "after the fact". If you tell them "Lebensohl" you cannot be certain that "their" Lebensohl is the same as "your" Lebensohl. IMO, if you use "unofficial" terminology (I am ignoring that "Lebensohl" is a bad example, as it is printed on the ACBL CC and thus is "official terminology") they are entitled to assume that you are using congruent terminology, so if they are misled they may be entitled to an adjustment. > But you are missing the point. As a listener, if I have to process > that > whole long explanation, I might just turn off. But if I do pay > attention, > at some point I will realize they are talking about Lebensohl. And, > just > to check, I will probably ask if they are playing Lebensohl just to > make > sure I understand. It is a whole lot simpler on me if they just say > "Lebensohl". If I don't know what Lebensohl is, I then ask. The hard case is when you *do* know what Lebensohl is, and so do they, but you don't entirely agree. The vast majority of named conventions have variations. (The ACBL CC, which lists Lebensohl, has a blank space for indicating which specific variations is being used.) > Same thing, if the opps show any indication they don't know what say > "Bergen raise" means, then I offer an explanation. Or if they look > like > they won't know, then I explain. But the usually response to a > query is > "Bergen raise" and everyone is happy. Well, if everyone is happy, there's no problem, is there? You're welcome to talk in shorthand if both sides have no problem with it. But if a problem arises, fault must lie with the person who introduced the unofficial terminology. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 26 22:50:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:50:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <703B1F6A8FD44950AD28D5D5D20FF276@NigelPC> Message-ID: The Economist, 24th October 2009, page 38: [snip] To deter, a punishment must be swift, certain and severe. Of these, severity matters the least, reckons Mr Kleinman, and there is a trade- off: the harsher the punishment, the more legal safeguards are required to ensure it is not misapplied. States that execute murderers do so only after decades of appeals. This costs millions in legal fees. So they hardly ever do it, which is not much of a deterrent. It turns out that milder sanctions can be swifter and more certain. For example, in Hawaii, until recently, felons ignored the terms of their probation because the only punishment available was a harsh one: being sent back to prison for the remainder of their term, typically five to ten years. Courts and probation officers were too swamped to handle the necessary paperwork and rebut the legal challenges to such harsh penalties. So violators typically got off scot free. This led people to conclude that they could misbehave with impunity. The chaos only ended when a judge started handing out instant sentences of a week or so. The certain prospect of spending a few days behind bars straight away made most of the probationers behave. Mr Kleinman suggests several other promising, non-macho approaches to curbing crime. Raise alcohol taxes. [snip] John (MadDog) Probst, 8th July 2004: Yeah, can you imagine the effect of "DA-----DDY!" across a 100-table Swiss? The whole friggin room erupts. He usually takes my rulings to appeal on various grounds: 1) He hates me 2) He's clueless 3) He always rules against me. OMG, I hate children, they should be stuck in a barrel and fed through the bung-hole from birth. At about age 17 I recommend driving in the cork. John Richard Hills, 27th October 2009: Binge drinking by young Aussies of about age 17 has been a health and social problem. Their tipple of choice was the cheap alcopops, pre- mixed alcohol and soft drink (e.g. Bundaberg Rum and Coca-Cola). So a year-and-a-half ago the Aussie government imposed a selective alcohol tax increase, upon alcopops only. Preliminary statistics suggests that this deterrent of "hit 'em where it hurts" - in the wallet - is effective, with Aussie teenagers moderating their behaviour. Grattan Endicott, 23rd September 2009: +=+ I think it wrong to say the 'deterrent' has gone. The deterrent lies in the use of Law 90. The policy in regard to that lies with the RAs and the practice with Directors. It distorts comparisons across the field if the element of punishment is embodied in the rectification thus giving the NOS a gratuitous bonus in their score. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Appeals Examples, WBF Code of Practice, 27th November 2003 edition, Example Appeal No 13. Procedural Penalty Teams - Round Robin The Facts: One of the players of this match was 3 minutes late to arrive at the table. The Director: Applied the penalty, prescribed in the regulations. Ruling: 1VP Penalty The Player appealed. The Player: Is a well known personality who had been in an official meeting prior to the match. He suggested it was unfair to his team to punish them for his engagements. He commented always plays fast enough and in fact ended the match with almost half an hour to spare. The Committee: Noted that the regulations contain automatic penalties for some good reasons. The Committee did not accept the excuse for being late and did not think that the case should have been brought to the Committee. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Regulation B.2.1 Deposit: Forfeited WBF Comment: The player, or his captain, seems to have acted with little foresight. Richard Hills, 27th October 2009: Is Bobby Wolff a well known personality? 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 Oct 26 23:38:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:38:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Fafiated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <15476004.1256055731471.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: >>Imps (Knockout Teams) >>Dlr: West >>Vul: East-West >> >>East-West were playing a canape relay system. >>North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Dorothy Richard >>1D (1) 3C (2) Dble(3) 4C >>4H 5C 5H (4) Pass >>? >> >>(1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major. Since East-West's >> system uses a strong 1C, West held maximum values for their opening >> bid of 1D. >>(2) Preempt >>(3) Negative >>(4) Break in tempo >> >>You, West, hold >> >>A5 >>Q9862 >>AK43 >>Q6 >> >>Question 1: Does East's break in tempo demonstrably suggest that 6H will >> be a more successful call than Pass? Thomas Dehn: >That depends on whether a pass by E over 5C would have been forcing. I >don't think it should be forcing, W might have stretched to bid 4H >because of E's negative double; furthermore W's 1D opening bid is >limited. Richard Hills: Some ACBL experts have a peculiar agreement that whether or not their high-level passes are forcing depends in part on whether or not their opponents are vulnerable. Apparently opponents never make non-vulnerable games in ACBL-land. Thomas Dehn: >I thus think that E might have chosen between a pass and 5H, and thus >E's hesitation does not "demonstrably" suggest bidding 6H. > >BTW, I pass. I have no C control, Richard Hills: The vigorous bidding by the opponents in clubs guarantees that East holds a singleton or void in clubs, hence guarantees that East was not thinking about passing. Ergo, in my opinion, East's break in tempo demonstrably suggests to West that East was dithering between a wimpy 5H and gutsy 6H. Thomas Dehn: >and weak hearts. I do not even consider bidding 6H. Richard Hills: At the table West not only considered the demonstrably suggested 6H, West bid the demonstrably suggested 6H - two off, -200. The complete deal -> J97 --- T876 AKJT43 A5 KQ42 Q9862 AJT7 AK43 Q52 Q6 52 T863 K543 J9 987 So yet another example of what was demonstrably suggested to West being not what East was actually thinking about (with the dissonance caused by North's psychic re-raise in clubs). Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 27 01:13:29 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:13:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair: "It is the stupidest children who are the most childish and the stupidest grown-ups who are the most grown-up." Robert Frick: [big snip] >You are trying to decide how high to pre-empt over the opponent's opening >bid. You ask the opps how high they play negative doubles. They refuse to >answer. A negative double was not made and could not have been made -- >you are asking about a hypothetical auction. [small snip] Richard Hills: I faced a similar problem a month ago when RHO, a sometime partner, bid a Keycard Blackwood 4NT. I had a choice between a risky intervention of 5D, or a wimpy, wimpy, wimpy Pass. My choice depended on guessing whether the opponents had adopted the anti-Blackwood interference DOPI convention, since it would be improper for me to ask a question about a future action. In RHO's partnership with me we had agreed DOPI and ROPI, but I also knew that LHO and RHO were a new partnership, so thus might have some gaps in their understandings. Ergo, I boldly bid where no man has bid before and picked up a slam swing when the opponents lacked a conventional counter- measure. When next I met LHO and RHO, RHO ruefully made a point of pre-alerting, "We now play DOPI and ROPI." :-) :-) Best wishes Shift the Ape, Narnia -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Oct 27 03:41:48 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:41:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AE1BEAC.6070500@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE1BEAC.6070500@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AE65DEC.5090704@nhcc.net> > From: Robert Frick > So, I open 1NT, the opponents overcall, and my partner bids 2NT Lebensohl. > I am supposed to explain this how? Let's say the overcall is 2S. Then, "Artificial, forcing. Shows a purely competitive hand with any suit other than spades or various game forcing hands that contain a spade stopper." If the overcall is something lower, you need to add something about invitational hands if that's the way you play lebensohl. > "Telling me to bid 3 Cl" seems to be the correct answer. If you give me that, I'll respond "What does it show, please?" You may use lebensohl on different hand types than I do, and if so, I want to know about it. From jrmayne at mindspring.com Tue Oct 27 02:56:46 2009 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:56:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes Message-ID: <21001954.1256608606393.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> It takes about ten seconds to say (over 2H, for example): "It forces 3C, and further bids will show a signoff in diamonds or clubs, or Stayman with a heart stopper, or an invitational hand in spades, or a 3N bid guaranteeing a stopper." It's really not that taxing to explain. I think failing to explain what the bid shows - especially to newer players - is obnoxious. --JRM -----Original Message----- >From: Steve Willner >Sent: Oct 26, 2009 10:41 PM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes > >> From: Robert Frick >> So, I open 1NT, the opponents overcall, and my partner bids 2NT Lebensohl. >> I am supposed to explain this how? > >Let's say the overcall is 2S. Then, "Artificial, forcing. Shows a >purely competitive hand with any suit other than spades or various game >forcing hands that contain a spade stopper." If the overcall is >something lower, you need to add something about invitational hands if >that's the way you play lebensohl. > >> "Telling me to bid 3 Cl" seems to be the correct answer. > >If you give me that, I'll respond "What does it show, please?" You may >use lebensohl on different hand types than I do, and if so, I want to >know about it. >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Oct 27 03:07:46 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:07:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AE65DEC.5090704@nhcc.net> References: <4AE1BEAC.6070500@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AE65DEC.5090704@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <9302828FBE3A45D994CE89E28351DFEF@erdos> "Steve Willner" >> From: Robert Frick >> So, I open 1NT, the opponents overcall, and my partner bids 2NT Lebensohl. >> I am supposed to explain this how? > > Let's say the overcall is 2S. Then, "Artificial, forcing. Shows a > purely competitive hand with any suit other than spades or various game > forcing hands that contain a spade stopper." If the overcall is > something lower, you need to add something about invitational hands if > that's the way you play lebensohl. > >> "Telling me to bid 3 Cl" seems to be the correct answer. > > If you give me that, I'll respond "What does it show, please?" You may > use lebensohl on different hand types than I do, and if so, I want to > know about it. And there is a problem for direct misinformation as well; this actually happened to me recently. RHO opened 1NT, and I bid 2S, showing spades and a minor. LHO bid 2NT, explained by RHO as, "Asks me to bid 3C". Partner assumed incorrectly that 2NT was a transfer to clubs, and thus (given her club holding) that my second suit was diamonds, so she bid 3D with four diamonds. If the opponents had doubled 3D, there would have been a messy director situation. Usually, I explain the convention as "Lebensohl, artificial, shows any of a variety of hands; I can give more detail if you wish." Most players know what they need to know from the word "Lebensohl". I can give a follow-up explanation in the cases in which it matters, or for weaker players who aren't familiar with the convention, but this saves time. (The follow-up may also be needed if the opponents compete before the relay is finished.) With many other conventions, it is important to get all the details. Explaining a 2D opening as "mini-Roman" may be misinformation even against players who know the convention. Some players play that it guarantees spades, which makes overcalling the 2D with 2S much more dangerous. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 27 07:27:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:27:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <21001954.1256608606393.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Frank Ezra Adcock (1886-1968), British classicist and historian: "Rome under Sulla was like a bus, with half the passengers trying to drive, and the rest trying to collect the fare." David Grabiner: [snip] >>With many other conventions, it is important to get all the details. >>Explaining a 2D opening as "mini-Roman" may be misinformation even >>against players who know the convention. Some players play that it >>guarantees spades, which makes overcalling the 2D with 2S much more >>dangerous. Richard Hills: Explaining 2NT as "lebensohl" may be misinformation even against players who know the convention. For example, some ACBL experts on the panel of The Bridge World's MSC believed that: (a) a lebensohl 2NT followed by a 3NT rebid, and also (b) an immediate 3NT, both guaranteed a stopper (rather than my partnerships' understanding that an immediate 3NT denies a stopper). John R. Mayne: >It takes about ten seconds to say (over 2H, for example): > >"It forces 3C, and further bids will show a signoff in diamonds or clubs, >or Stayman with a heart stopper, or an invitational hand in spades, or a >3N bid guaranteeing a stopper." > >It's really not that taxing to explain. I think failing to explain what >the bid shows - especially to newer players - is obnoxious. Richard Hills: Illegal, obnoxious and illegal. (x) Illegal - Law 40B4: "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score." (y) Obnoxious - A newbie feels too embarrassed to enquire further when an expert sneers, "Everybody should know that this is the Antejentacular Pandiculation convention." (z) Illegal - Causing "embarrassment" to a newbie is infracting Law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: "He didn't call his Father and Mother 'Father' and 'Mother', but Harold and Alberta. They were very up-to-date and advanced people. They were vegetarians, non-smokers and tee-totallers, and wore a special kind of underclothes." Best wishes Shift the Ape, Narnia -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Oct 27 09:54:11 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:54:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fafiated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AE6B533.5030103@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > Richard Hills: > > At the table West not only considered the demonstrably suggested 6H, West > bid the demonstrably suggested 6H - two off, -200. The complete deal -> > > J97 > --- > T876 > AKJT43 > A5 KQ42 > Q9862 AJT7 > AK43 Q52 > Q6 52 > T863 > K543 > J9 > 987 > > So yet another example of what was demonstrably suggested to West being > not what East was actually thinking about (with the dissonance caused by > North's psychic re-raise in clubs). > > AG : psychic ? Couldn't he have been defending against 4H ? Anyway, it once again shows that nothing has ever been suggested over a "middle-of-the-road" auction. Remember when I said the same about a 3-level raise and some said that it could only be an hesitation between 3 and 4 ? Which was wrong. There could even be a default-value policy that a tempo followed by a bid at level X shall not be taken as suggesting either X-1 or X+1 was the alternative, thereby not creating any obligations on partner. Given, of course, that X-1 (or some other non-constructive alternative, like a pass or penalty double) was possible. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 27 09:58:31 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:58:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AE6B637.7010803@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Frank Ezra Adcock (1886-1968), British classicist and historian: > > "Rome under Sulla was like a bus, with half the passengers trying to > drive, and the rest trying to collect the fare." > > David Grabiner: > > [snip] > > >>> With many other conventions, it is important to get all the details. >>> Explaining a 2D opening as "mini-Roman" may be misinformation even >>> against players who know the convention. Some players play that it >>> guarantees spades, which makes overcalling the 2D with 2S much more >>> dangerous. >>> > > Richard Hills: > > Explaining 2NT as "lebensohl" may be misinformation even against players > who know the convention. For example, some ACBL experts on the panel of > The Bridge World's MSC believed that: > > (a) a lebensohl 2NT followed by a 3NT rebid, > > and also > > (b) an immediate 3NT, > > both guaranteed a stopper (rather than my partnerships' understanding > that an immediate 3NT denies a stopper). > > John R. Mayne: > > >> It takes about ten seconds to say (over 2H, for example): >> >> "It forces 3C, and further bids will show a signoff in diamonds or clubs, >> or Stayman with a heart stopper, or an invitational hand in spades, or a >> 3N bid guaranteeing a stopper." >> >> It's really not that taxing to explain. I think failing to explain what >> the bid shows - especially to newer players - is obnoxious. >> > > Richard Hills: > > Illegal, obnoxious and illegal. > > (x) Illegal - Law 40B4: > > "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to > provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, > is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score." > > (y) Obnoxious - A newbie feels too embarrassed to enquire further when an > expert sneers, "Everybody should know that this is the Antejentacular > Pandiculation convention." > AG : I know everything about pandiculation. I practice it myself. What's the other word meaning ? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 27 10:06:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:06:34 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <390DF1D561804957ABFCB9A78376E39B@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Shift the Ape, Narnia > +=+ Aslan terms it the pride of lions. +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 27 10:15:49 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:15:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AE6B637.7010803@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AE6B637.7010803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AE6BA45.6000709@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> (y) Obnoxious - A newbie feels too embarrassed to enquire further when an >> expert sneers, "Everybody should know that this is the Antejentacular >> Pandiculation convention." >> > AG : I know everything about pandiculation. I practice it myself. What's > the other word meaning ? > It describes my regular reaction to blml posts. They often induce antejentacular pandiculation in me! Not Richard's posts though! Well done, Richard, you've added two words to my vocabulary. (yes, I did need to go and look them up) Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 27 10:18:57 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:18:57 -0000 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4AE6B637.7010803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3C7F36F6A47B45279BACD9C54F6B04E9@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > AG : I know everything about pandiculation. I practice it myself. What's the other word meaning ? +=+ I believe activity before breakfast is antejentacular +=+ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Oct 27 10:22:59 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:22:59 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax In-Reply-To: <7F3B828F3E0343AD9DE24D746AE36EDC@MARVLAPTOP> References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP><4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><2C94055A-8FC0-4FAC-9A58-011F3C979AA5@starpower.net><0825CB32B4984833A98F435E8EFA9B04@MARVLAPTOP> <7F3B828F3E0343AD9DE24D746AE36EDC@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <5F327E34-83B9-4722-B3A9-93BE2543BF13@btinternet.com> On 25 Oct 2009, at 22:51, Marvin L French wrote: > When A. Moyse Jr was editor, the auction diagrams started with the > first bidder on the left, which I strongly prefer. Even when that puts West to the right of East? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091027/cba089e5/attachment.html From ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com Tue Oct 27 17:14:25 2009 From: ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com (Ranju Bhattacharjee) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:44:25 +0530 Subject: [BLML] UI Message-ID: Dear Bridge Friends, Last sunday at IOC tourney in Delhi, the bidding in one of the hands went as follows: West North East South 2C(1) 4S 5C Pass Pass A 2 Minutes Pause & then DBL Pass 5S DBL All Pass East called the director after North bid 5S and informed him that South has made a call of DBL after a 2 minutes pause (which South also agreed) and he wants to reserve his right. The director informed that "No infringement has taken place as South has taken a bid of DBL after pause" and now North is free to take his bid and the bidding should be continued. East's viewpoint was totally different: As per him the DBL after 2 minutes pause itself tells the partner that "well partner this is not a penalty dbl from my side but I am not sure what to do. So you take the decision, whether you want to play 5C double or correct it to 5S". This is a clear cut case of UI (unauthorised inforamation to partner). In other words, over 5C-Pass-Pass-DBL in tempo without pause, North is not going to take out as DBL of 5 level calls from opponent is strictly for penalties. I want an opinion from you all gentlemen. The full hand: Board no 6 EW Vul S xxx H Txxx D KTxx C xx N S S xxx H xx W E H AKxx D Qxxxx D J C KQxxxx C AJTxx S S AKQJxxx H QJx D Axx C On club lead from West, South was able to take out trump, play HQ and finally when DJ came down on DA, took the diamond finesse to make the contract. The contract can go down in Heart lead etc, etc. but that is not at all the point. Point is whether Director should allow North to bid 5S or director should consider the UI and allow the final bid to be 5C Doubled. Regards, Ranju Bhattacharjee On behalf of TC Pant | New window Print all Expand all Collapse all Forward all More about... Most Wanted PC Game ? Contract Bridge ? Bid Whist ? Play Ask Guru Joe ? _________________________________________________________________ Windows 7: Simplify what you do everyday. Find the right PC for you. http://windows.microsoft.com/shop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091027/9a3115e9/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Tue Oct 27 17:40:40 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:40:40 -0700 Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:44:25 +0530." Message-ID: <200910271629.JAA16624@mailhub.irvine.com> Ranju wrote: > Dear Bridge Friends, > > Last sunday at IOC tourney in Delhi, the bidding in one of the hands went > as follows: > > West North East South > 2C(1) 4S > 5C Pass Pass A 2 Minutes Pause & then DBL > Pass 5S DBL All Pass I'm assuming 2C is Precision, and that's what the (1) means? > East called the director after North bid 5S and informed him that South has > made a call of DBL after a 2 minutes pause (which South also agreed) and he > wants to reserve his right. > > The director informed that "No infringement has taken place as South has > taken a bid of DBL after pause" and now North is free to take his bid and > the bidding should be continued. > > East's viewpoint was totally different: As per him the DBL after 2 minutes > pause itself tells the partner that "well partner this is not a penalty dbl > from my side but I am not sure what to do. So you take the decision, > whether you want to play 5C double or correct it to 5S". This is a clear > cut case of UI (unauthorised inforamation to partner). > > In other words, over 5C-Pass-Pass-DBL in tempo without pause, North is not > going to take out as DBL of 5 level calls from opponent is strictly for > penalties. > > I want an opinion from you all gentlemen. > > The full hand: Board no 6 EW Vul > > S xxx > H Txxx > D KTxx > C xx > > N > S S xxx > H xx W E H AKxx > D Qxxxx D J > C KQxxxx C AJTxx > > S > S AKQJxxx > H QJx > D Axx > C > > On club lead from West, South was able to take out trump, play HQ and > finally when DJ came down on DA, took the diamond finesse to make the > contract. The contract can go down in Heart lead etc, etc. but that is > not at all the point. Point is whether Director should allow North to bid > 5S or director should consider the UI and allow the final bid to be 5C > Doubled. The director seems to think that if a player pauses and does something than passes, then there's no UI issue and his partner is free to do whatever he wishes. The director is totally wrong. I think East is probably right that the UI conveys information that the double is not really a penalty double, while an in-tempo double would have been clearly penalties. This depends on N/S's agreements about doubles in this situation, but it's probably correct. However, this does NOT automatically mean that the score should be adjusted. What isn't clear (to me) is whether passing is a logical alternative for North. North has significantly more spade length than expected, given South's spade length (on the auction). North has one useful card on defense but otherwise nothing. North's club holding makes it nearly impossible that his partner has a trump stack, on this auction. So I think there is a case that North *would* pull a double to 5S even if it were clear that the double was for penalties. (It may depend on the form of scoring, too.) That's a case of bridge judgment, and a director and committee may disagree; but they definitely need to consider that and to get some expert opinion on the matter. If they decide that passing *is* a logical alternative for North, then the score is adjusted to 5C doubled making an overtrick. (I believe there are enough entries to set up the fifth diamond.) If they decide that passing is not a logical alternative, the score stands. -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 27 18:59:02 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:59:02 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Bridge Syntax References: <7CB38BA22C0545CF86ADAC2DB94C4A0E@MARVLAPTOP><4516367.1256294421193.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><2C94055A-8FC0-4FAC-9A58-011F3C979AA5@starpower.net><0825CB32B4984833A98F435E8EFA9B04@MARVLAPTOP><7F3B828F3E0343AD9DE24D746AE36EDC@MARVLAPTOP> <5F327E34-83B9-4722-B3A9-93BE2543BF13@btinternet.com> Message-ID: From: "Gordon Rainsford" > > Marvin L French wrote: > >> When A. Moyse Jr was editor, the auction diagrams started with >> the >> first bidder on the left, which I strongly prefer. > > Even when that puts West to the right of East? Good, that gives me an excuse to expand on a favorite theme: August 1963 Problems scored Sept 1963: (E) Rubber bridge, N-S vul North East South West 1S 2H ? I was on the "expert panel" then, bounced off later as an unknown (in the East) when Kaplan took over. My answer was 2S, which scored 40. 3D or Dbl scored 100, 3C or pass 60. Double was penalty in those days, but negative doubles had come into being. I had some good company: Sam Fry Jr, Marshall Miles, Bobby Nail, and Larry Weiss of Boston. Nine others who stipulated that their preferred call was a negative double, but didn't think it permissible, got their vote changed to a double and a score of 100. Since I didn't (and don't) play negative doubles, I couldn't object to that. L. Rosler comment: Negative double. (otherwise two spades.) After six years it is time for this to be accepted as part of bridge. If you absolutely refuse, put me down for a reluctant two spades, hoping for the best. Director Albert H. Morehead: Okay, you're probably right. Six years is a long time and the convention has gained some popularity. Not merely as much as you and a few others would believe, but some, so the negative double is herewith "acceptable." We cannot, however, let it be thought that we are surrendering. In admitting this convention into polite society, we find a few things that scream for expression. To wit: It is indeed convenient at times to indicate values that do not constitute a raise or a solid basis for the bid of a different suit. But that sums up the virtues of the call, and it most emphatically does not sum up the discussion. The other side of the coin is so blurred as to be virtually blank. Playing negative doubles, what happens to the potential for business doubles--which, let us stress, is a matter of some importance to some of us who absolutely reject the thesis that "good opponents never, *never*, lay themselves open to business doubles. [marv] After negative doubles became common, overcalls became weaker and weaker, which Morehead could not have foreseen but which reinforce his stance. Morehead continues: We'll tell you what happens: *The business double automatically loses about four-fifths of its power.* Oh yes, there are "provisions" in connection with the negative double which are supposed to take care of the punishing aspect. That is, when North (say) bids a spade and East overcalls with two hearts, South passes with what would constitute a standard business double, and North then is supposed to double, himself, on the assumption that South is panting to convert said double to the penalty variety by passing. But d'ya know, somehow or other this exquisitely ingenious, *rather* circuitous technique just doesn't work out! Don't believe anyone's claim that it does. The record is clear: Chances for defensive windfalls go down the drain, or at any rate are cut by about 80%. The Cavendish Club has been a pretty good proving ground, and our figures are taken from that arena. So, let the negative doublers enjoy their half-way advantages. But why are they so reluctant when the subject turns to negative doubles? [marv]: Morehead did not explain the main problem, which is that there is no longer "cooperation" between partners as to whether a double should be left in. Cooperative-type doubles (no trump stack) are a much greater source of profit than the one-sided decision to pass partner's balancing double. And, of course, the semi-automatic balancing double is very often a poor description of opener's hand. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From schoderb at msn.com Tue Oct 27 19:50:43 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:50:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Having stayed out of responding or getting involved in BLML discussions for a long time I can't let this one go by without comment, since it goes to the heart of UI and the laws. Maybe it's the effects of having given up drinking, recovering from a new knee operation, old age, or something like that but I could not keep my fingers off the keyboard. East is correct in labeling South's action as UI. North's call of 5 Spades cannot be stopped or cancelled, but if E/W are damaged by the 5 spade call the TD should adjust the score. I would only hope that the TD was trying to say that the delay and call by South is not in itself an infringement of law. But I don't see how South can justify the call of 5 spades with the information of the delay which IS AN INFRINGEMENT. Therefore the score should be adjusted (and the TD -- if I'm right on what he meant to say -- needs to use more explicit and correct words ). Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Ranju Bhattacharjee To: Bridge Law Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:14 PM Subject: [BLML] UI Dear Bridge Friends, Last sunday at IOC tourney in Delhi, the bidding in one of the hands went as follows: West North East South 2C(1) 4S 5C Pass Pass A 2 Minutes Pause & then DBL Pass 5S DBL All Pass East called the director after North bid 5S and informed him that South has made a call of DBL after a 2 minutes pause (which South also agreed) and he wants to reserve his right. The director informed that "No infringement has taken place as South has taken a bid of DBL after pause" and now North is free to take his bid and the bidding should be continued. East's viewpoint was totally different: As per him the DBL after 2 minutes pause itself tells the partner that "well partner this is not a penalty dbl from my side but I am not sure what to do. So you take the decision, whether you want to play 5C double or correct it to 5S". This is a clear cut case of UI (unauthorised inforamation to partner). In other words, over 5C-Pass-Pass-DBL in tempo without pause, North is not going to take out as DBL of 5 level calls from opponent is strictly for penalties. I want an opinion from you all gentlemen. The full hand: Board no 6 EW Vul S xxx H Txxx D KTxx C xx N S S xxx H xx W E H AKxx D Qxxxx D J C KQxxxx C AJTxx S S AKQJxxx H QJx D Axx C On club lead from West, South was able to take out trump, play HQ and finally when DJ came down on DA, took the diamond finesse to make the contract. The contract can go down in Heart lead etc, etc. but that is not at all the point. Point is whether Director should allow North to bid 5S or director should consider the UI and allow the final bid to be 5C Doubled. Regards, Ranju Bhattacharjee On behalf of TC Pant | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ New window Print all Expand all Collapse all Forward all More about... Most Wanted PC Game ? Contract Bridge ? Bid Whist ? Play Ask Guru Joe ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://windows.microsoft.com/shop Find the right PC for you. _______________________________________________ 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/20091027/69bf35ab/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 27 21:10:12 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:10:12 -0700 Subject: [BLML] UI References: <200910271629.JAA16624@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <28F95EFCAE4B44B59A7B7EC862A811B5@MARVLAPTOP> > Ranju wrote: > >> Dear Bridge Friends, >> >> Last sunday at IOC tourney in Delhi, the bidding in one of the >> hands went >> as follows: >> >> West North East South >> 2C(1) 4S >> 5C Pass Pass A 2 Minutes Pause & then >> DBL >> Pass 5S DBL All Pass > > I'm assuming 2C is Precision, and that's what the (1) means? > > >> East called the director after North bid 5S and informed him that >> South has >> made a call of DBL after a 2 minutes pause (which South also >> agreed) and he >> wants to reserve his right. >> >> The director informed that "No infringement has taken place as >> South has >> taken a bid of DBL after pause" and now North is free to take his >> bid and >> the bidding should be continued. Kojak has given a fine opinion of this bad ruling, but I would like to add something. East had no right to call the Director at that time, because he could not know whether an infraction had taken place. Suspicion does not suffice. L16B2: The *opponents* [my emphasis] should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information has taken place. L16B3: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends. The footnote says "It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier..." but that applies only when a player "has substantial reason to believe," which can only occur at sight of dummy if not at the end of play, as the footnote to L16A2 made clear in the 1997 Laws. Calling the TD before then is a complete waste of everyone's time, as the TD can do nothing until the end of play. Maybe it's okay if the TD happens to be passing by and you can say, "We may need you when this deal is over." Perhaps that's what the footnote intends. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Oct 27 21:46:59 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:46:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/10/27 WILLIAM SCHODER > Having stayed out of responding or getting involved in BLML discussions > for a long time I can't let this one go by without comment, since it goes to > the heart of UI and the laws. Maybe it's the effects of having given up > drinking, recovering from a new knee operation, old age, or something like > that but I could not keep my fingers off the keyboard. > > East is correct in labeling South's action as UI. > North's call of 5 Spades cannot be stopped or cancelled, but if E/W are > damaged by the 5 spade call the TD should adjust the score. > > I would only hope that the TD was trying to say that the delay and call by > South is not in itself an infringement of law. > But I don't see how South can justify the call of 5 spades with the > information of the delay which IS AN INFRINGEMENT. > > Therefore the score should be adjusted (and the TD -- if I'm right on > what he meant to say -- needs to use more explicit and correct words ). > > Kojak > > I agree with all Kojak (and others) say about the TD's performance. > However, I don't agree with the conclusion. To me, the double is in no way for penalties. It shows a hand with a lot of playing strength, with some defense. For me, pass with the north hand is not a LA - bidding 5S would be absolutely automatic. To make a decision as a TD I'd poll NS's peers. If passing showed to be a LA, I'd adjust to 5Cx. > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Ranju Bhattacharjee > *To:* Bridge Law Mailing List > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:14 PM > *Subject:* [BLML] UI > > Dear Bridge Friends, > > Last sunday at IOC tourney in Delhi, the bidding in one of the hands went > as follows: > > West North East South > 2C(1) 4S > 5C Pass Pass A 2 Minutes Pause & then DBL > Pass 5S DBL All Pass > > East called the director after North bid 5S and informed him that South has > made a call of DBL after a 2 minutes pause (which South also agreed) and he > wants to reserve his right. > > The director informed that "No infringement has taken place as South has > taken a bid of DBL after pause" and now North is free to take his bid and > the bidding should be continued. > > East's viewpoint was totally different: As per him the DBL after 2 minutes > pause itself tells the partner that "well partner this is not a penalty dbl > from my side but I am not sure what to do. So you take the decision, whether > you want to play 5C double or correct it to 5S". This is a clear cut case of > UI (unauthorised inforamation to partner). > > In other words, over 5C-Pass-Pass-DBL in tempo without pause, North is not > going to take out as DBL of 5 level calls from opponent is strictly for > penalties. > > I want an opinion from you all gentlemen. > > The full hand: Board no 6 EW Vul > > S xxx > H Txxx > D KTxx > C xx > > N > S S xxx > H xx W E H AKxx > D Qxxxx D J > C KQxxxx C AJTxx > > S > S AKQJxxx > H QJx > D Axx > C > > On club lead from West, South was able to take out trump, play HQ and > finally when DJ came down on DA, took the diamond finesse to make the > contract. The contract can go down in Heart lead etc, etc. but that is not > at all the point. Point is whether Director should allow North to bid 5S or > director should consider the UI and allow the final bid to be 5C Doubled. > > > Regards, > > Ranju Bhattacharjee > > On behalf of TC Pant > > > **** > **** > ******** > > > | > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > **** > **** > *New window* > *Print all* > *Expand all* > *Collapse all* > *Forward all* > More about... > Most Wanted PC Game ? > Contract Bridge ? > Bid Whist ? > Play Ask Guru Joe ? > > > > ------------------------------ > http://windows.microsoft.com/shop Find the right PC for you._______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091027/b0f9f532/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 27 23:17:59 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:17:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:27:47 -0500, wrote: > Frank Ezra Adcock (1886-1968), British classicist and historian: > > "Rome under Sulla was like a bus, with half the passengers trying to > drive, and the rest trying to collect the fare." > > David Grabiner: > > [snip] > >>> With many other conventions, it is important to get all the details. >>> Explaining a 2D opening as "mini-Roman" may be misinformation even >>> against players who know the convention. Some players play that it >>> guarantees spades, which makes overcalling the 2D with 2S much more >>> dangerous. > > Richard Hills: > > Explaining 2NT as "lebensohl" may be misinformation even against players > who know the convention. For example, some ACBL experts on the panel of > The Bridge World's MSC believed that: > > (a) a lebensohl 2NT followed by a 3NT rebid, > > and also > > (b) an immediate 3NT, > > both guaranteed a stopper (rather than my partnerships' understanding > that an immediate 3NT denies a stopper). > > John R. Mayne: > >> It takes about ten seconds to say (over 2H, for example): >> >> "It forces 3C, and further bids will show a signoff in diamonds or >> clubs, >> or Stayman with a heart stopper, or an invitational hand in spades, or a >> 3N bid guaranteeing a stopper." >> >> It's really not that taxing to explain. I think failing to explain what >> the bid shows - especially to newer players - is obnoxious. > > Richard Hills: > > Illegal, obnoxious and illegal. > > (x) Illegal - Law 40B4: > > "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to > provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws > require, > is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score." > > (y) Obnoxious - A newbie feels too embarrassed to enquire further when an > expert sneers, "Everybody should know that this is the Antejentacular > Pandiculation convention." > > (z) Illegal - Causing "embarrassment" to a newbie is infracting Law 74A2: > > "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause > annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the > enjoyment of the game." I am not sure you and John are thinking this through very carefully. I am pretty sure that John's spiel will not make any sense to a newbie, or anyone who does not know Lebensohl. Especially if said in 10 seconds. Instead, try "His 2NT bid tells me to bid 3C." Pause while they digest that. "He probably has a weak hand with a long suit and this is his way of trying to stop in 3C or 3D." Another pause. "He could have a strong hand," quick pause, "and I will know that from the future bidding." 14-15 seconds, maybe longer if they are slow to catch on. If John is trying to be technically correct while he knowingly leaves the newbies lost and helpless, it is inconsiderate and legal. I am guessing that he doesn't really say that spiel, or else he is just clueless. If you want to be considerate to newbies, you probably should be so concered about some very small chance that they will call the director and you will be punished for not giving every shred of detail. Instead, give them an explanation that they can best understand and is most useful to them. IMO. Reminds me of directors who think they should read their ruling from the lawbook. Bob > > C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: > > "He didn't call his Father and Mother 'Father' and 'Mother', but Harold > and Alberta. They were very up-to-date and advanced people. They were > vegetarians, non-smokers and tee-totallers, and wore a special kind of > underclothes." > > > Best wishes > > Shift the Ape, Narnia > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > 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 Arbhuston at aol.com Tue Oct 27 23:08:43 2009 From: Arbhuston at aol.com (Arbhuston at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:08:43 EDT Subject: [BLML] UI Message-ID: In a message dated 10/27/2009 11:41:44 AM Central Daylight Time, adam at irvine.com writes: Ranju wrote: > Dear Bridge Friends, > > Last sunday at IOC tourney in Delhi, the bidding in one of the hands went > as follows: > > West North East South > 2C(1) 4S > 5C Pass Pass A 2 Minutes Pause & then DBL > Pass 5S DBL All Pass I'm assuming 2C is Precision, and that's what the (1) means? > East called the director after North bid 5S and informed him that South has > made a call of DBL after a 2 minutes pause (which South also agreed) and he > wants to reserve his right. > > The director informed that "No infringement has taken place as South has > taken a bid of DBL after pause" and now North is free to take his bid and > the bidding should be continued. > > East's viewpoint was totally different: As per him the DBL after 2 minutes > pause itself tells the partner that "well partner this is not a penalty dbl > from my side but I am not sure what to do. So you take the decision, > whether you want to play 5C double or correct it to 5S". This is a clear > cut case of UI (unauthorised inforamation to partner). > > In other words, over 5C-Pass-Pass-DBL in tempo without pause, North is not > going to take out as DBL of 5 level calls from opponent is strictly for > penalties. > > I want an opinion from you all gentlemen. > > The full hand: Board no 6 EW Vul > > S xxx > H Txxx > D KTxx > C xx > > N > S S xxx > H xx W E H AKxx > D Qxxxx D J > C KQxxxx C AJTxx > > S > S AKQJxxx > H QJx > D Axx > C > > On club lead from West, South was able to take out trump, play HQ and > finally when DJ came down on DA, took the diamond finesse to make the > contract. The contract can go down in Heart lead etc, etc. but that is > not at all the point. Point is whether Director should allow North to bid > 5S or director should consider the UI and allow the final bid to be 5C > Doubled. The director seems to think that if a player pauses and does something than passes, then there's no UI issue and his partner is free to do whatever he wishes. The director is totally wrong. I think East is probably right that the UI conveys information that the double is not really a penalty double, while an in-tempo double would have been clearly penalties. This depends on N/S's agreements about doubles in this situation, but it's probably correct. However, this does NOT automatically mean that the score should be adjusted. What isn't clear (to me) is whether passing is a logical alternative for North. North has significantly more spade length than expected, given South's spade length (on the auction). North has one useful card on defense but otherwise nothing. North's club holding makes it nearly impossible that his partner has a trump stack, on this auction. So I think there is a case that North *would* pull a double to 5S even if it were clear that the double was for penalties. (It may depend on the form of scoring, too.) That's a case of bridge judgment, and a director and committee may disagree; but they definitely need to consider that and to get some expert opinion on the matter. If they decide that passing *is* a logical alternative for North, then the score is adjusted to 5C doubled making an overtrick. (I believe there are enough entries to set up the fifth diamond.) If they decide that passing is not a logical alternative, the score stands. -- Adam _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb. I agree with everything that Adam says except that I cannot think that Pass is not a logical alternative. Since South's 4S bid may have been somewhat more pre-emptive than it was, North is looking down the barrel of a possibly making slam, but by passing 5C he is out for only a game. When the auction creates awkward decisions, usually there are logical alternatives. Michael Huston -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091027/910ce772/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 27 23:18:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:18:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair: "Puddleglum is my name. But it doesn't matter if you forget it. I can always tell you again." John R. Mayne: >>It takes about ten seconds to say (over 2H, for example): >> >>"It forces 3C, and further bids will show a signoff in diamonds or >>clubs, or Stayman with a heart stopper, or an invitational hand in >>spades, or a 3N bid guaranteeing a stopper." >> >>It's really not that taxing to explain. I think failing to explain >>what the bid shows - especially to newer players - is obnoxious. Robert Frick: [snip] >I am guessing that he doesn't really say that spiel, or else he is >just clueless. "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher; "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." Richard Hills: I am guessing that Bob intended this scathing critique of John as a private email to me, or else Bob is just clueless about Henk's blml ground rules of courteous debate. Robert Frick: [snip] >Instead, give them an explanation that they can best understand and >is most useful to them. [snip] Richard Hills: A concise and understandable explanation - Yes. But an incomplete explanation - Definitely No. ABF Alert Regulations, Introduction: "...Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can..." Best wishes Shift the Ape, Narnia -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 27 23:33:01 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:33:01 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) Message-ID: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> In the November 2009 issue of The Bridge World, Jeff Rubens editorial is entitled You Can Only Lose, and proceeds with a preamble followed by 12 questions. I will relay to BLML the questions one at a time, to avoid a huge cluttered-up result if I sent all at once. For some of them I'll include my proposed response, and y'all can bless or condemn it. For any responses that seem to be a consensus, I will relay that consensus to Jeff. ###### There are many situations-a depressingly large number--in which a player faced with a behavioral choice can only lose: *Whatever action is taken*, a group of people, usually including some respected voices in the bridge community will say that it is wrong. These circumstances include: (1) An entrant can improve its chances of winning a tournament by impairing its chances in a part of the event, say a particular match. In that match, should the entrant (a) try to win or (b) try to lose? ######### L72A. Observance of Laws The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst (sic) complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws. Where are the ethical standards pertaining to this situation? I believe Edgar Kaplan said play to lose a match if that increases your chance to win the event. Is that acceptable? WBF General Conditions of Contest May 2009: The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. Does that mean win the event or win every match? I think it means win every match. My tentative answer is to play to win at all times, but don't strain yourself if losing would be a benefit. For instance, play your weakest pair throughout a team match, but tell the team to play their best. I can't cite official justification for that, however. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 28 00:35:52 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:35:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:18:37 -0500, wrote: > C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair: > > "Puddleglum is my name. But it doesn't matter if you forget it. I > can always tell you again." > > John R. Mayne: > >>> It takes about ten seconds to say (over 2H, for example): >>> >>> "It forces 3C, and further bids will show a signoff in diamonds or >>> clubs, or Stayman with a heart stopper, or an invitational hand in >>> spades, or a 3N bid guaranteeing a stopper." >>> >>> It's really not that taxing to explain. I think failing to explain >>> what the bid shows - especially to newer players - is obnoxious. > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >> I am guessing that he doesn't really say that spiel, or else he is >> just clueless. > > "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher; "Vanity of vanities, all is > vanity." > > Richard Hills: > > I am guessing that Bob intended this scathing critique of John as a > private email to me, or else Bob is just clueless about Henk's blml > ground rules of courteous debate. One of the options was that he doesn't really say that spiel. I am honored if you think that is the most scathing critique I can make. But I apologize, I should have said something less pejorative, like that maybe you and John are "unaware of whether or not they are actually communicating with another person, and reasoning logically about what should be good communication but coming to the wrong conclusion by leaving out basic principles of communication" There is a style of writing in which you try to leave nothing out and say everything unambiguously. It is used for legal documents. It is boring, difficult to impossible to read, and not used for normal human communication. When you communicate with people, you should leave out details in order to aid comprehension, and you should try to phrase things in terms of how people think, not how a computer thinks. > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >> Instead, give them an explanation that they can best understand and >> is most useful to them. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > A concise and understandable explanation - Yes. But an incomplete > explanation - Definitely No. > > ABF Alert Regulations, Introduction: > > "...Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, > but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can..." yeah yeah, you try explaining Stayman. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 27 23:49:21 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:49:21 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (2) Message-ID: In the November 2009 issue of The Bridge World, Jeff Rubens editorial is entitled You Can Only Lose, and proceeds with a preamble followed by 12 questions. I will relay to BLML the questions one at a time, to avoid a huge cluttered-up result if I sent all at once. For some of them I'll include my proposed response, and y'all can bless or condemn it. For any responses that seem to be a consensus, I will relay that consensus to Jeff. ########### (2) Local rules sometimes conflict with what is widely believed to be the spirit and nature of the game; for example, a pair may be allowed profitability to conceal understandings from its opponents. In such an instance, should the competitor (c) follow the rules to best advantage [as required by the principles of sportsmanship, under which it is necessary to win within the rules] or (d) follow one's heart by not taking advantage of the flaws in the rules [as required to protect the integrity of the game]? I have an example of this. The ACBL does not require full disclosure of auction subtleties during the Clarification Period, except when answering a question. If a treatment does not require an Alert or pre-disclosure, disclosing it is voluntary: For instance, I will say "The two notrump to my one club opening could have bypassed a weak major suit." That's because I choose Jeff's (d), and because of the following: Principle of Full Disclosure: The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically required in volunterring information to the opponents. Quite often, the declaring side in an actively ethical partnership will volunteer such information before the opening lead is made. Evidently being "actively ethical" is optional. My answer to Jeff is (d), but both the Laws and the ACBL should require this answer. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 27 23:52:09 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:52:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Law 72A - Observance of Laws "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Marvin French asked: >Where are the ethical standards pertaining to this situation? I >believe Edgar Kaplan said play to lose a match if that increases >your chance to win the event. Is that acceptable? Richard Hills replies: In my opinion it is not a question of ethical standards, but rather a question of what idiosyncratic regulations have been enacted by the various Regulating Authorities. For example -> EBU White Book, clause 72.2, Actions to influence qualifying positions In England it is not, of itself, improper to attempt to influence the results of an event, or part of an event, so as to try to increase one's own success in the event. If a sponsoring organisation wishes to prevent such tactics then it should design the competition accordingly. An example may help clarify these statements: Example Suppose: (a) selection trials comprise a qualifying stage leading to a play-off between the two leading teams; (b) team A is certain to win, and plays team B in the final qualifying round; (c) team A would rather play team B in the final than another possible qualifier. In such circumstances team A is permitted to play deliberately badly so as to increase the chance of team B qualifying. This action, called "dumping", is considered against the spirit of the game by some people. A solution is to design Conditions of Contest such that it is always in the best interests of competitors to play well. In the cited example there could be a carry-forward to the final. In many competitions outside England, to play badly would be treated as a gross abuse of the correct attitude to the game as required by Law 74A2, and conditions of contest are sometimes explicit on the matter. Examples (a) The American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) has a regulation that a contestant must do his best to win each board. Thus playing badly deliberately would be a breach of regulation in an ACBL event. (b) The World Bridge Federation has a regulation that requires best endeavours on the part of players. The Conditions of Contest for the World Championships in 2001 said: "It is not permissible for a partnership to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that of its 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 28 00:08:46 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:08:46 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (3) Message-ID: In the November 2009 issue of The Bridge World, Jeff Rubens editorial is entitled You Can Only Lose, and proceeds with a preamble followed by 12 questions. I will relay to BLML the questions one at a time, to avoid a huge cluttered-up result if I sent all at once. For some of them I'll include my proposed response, and y'all can bless or condemn it. For any responses that seem to be a consensus, I will relay that consensus to Jeff. ##### (3) When an opponent transmits unauthorized information to a partner who takes actions that are effective and seem normal but that may not be evaluated the same way by others, should one (e) ask for an adjusted score or (f) do nothing? ###### Well, you don't ask for an adjusted score, that's not polite, you just tell the TD what happened. Anyway, there is no requirement to call the TD if a possible irregularity of this nature has not been commented upon. You can say nothing and let it pass. However, you have the right to call the TD at the end of play if you wish when there is posssible damage, there's nothing wrong with that. The TD will protect your opponents from any abuse of that right. And you must make that call, if you draw attention to an apparent irregularity, per Law 9B1(a) Depends on who the opponent is, perhaps. Inexperienced? Forget it, their UI usually helps your side and usually goes unnoticed by the partner. Pretty blonde? Depends on how old you are and your marital status. Mean opponents or a pro-client pair? Call the TD for sure. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 28 00:14:49 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:14:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeff Rubens: (2) Local rules sometimes conflict with what is widely believed to be the spirit and nature of the game; for example, a pair may be allowed profitability to conceal understandings from its opponents. In such an instance, should the competitor (c) follow the rules to best advantage [as required by the principles of sportsmanship, under which it is necessary to win within the rules] or (d) follow one's heart by not taking advantage of the flaws in the rules [as required to protect the integrity of the game]? Richard Hills: Wrong question, false dichotomy. As a player I have no choice but to obey (c) when I correctly fail to alert what the ABF terms a "self-alerting" call. But the powers-that-be in the ABF obeyed (d), having designed less flawed rules. And a decade ago when the ABF called for suggestions I was one of several players who obeyed (d) by suggesting the introduction of verbal "pre-alerts" and written "pre-alerts" on a redesigned system card. The ABF adopted this concept, together with the useful idea of "post-alerts", which thus mitigate the flaws of "self-alerts". Executive Summary: When bad rules exist, such as the 1997 Lawbook, obey those rules while they are in force, but doggedly lobby for better rules, such as the 2007 Lawbook. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 28 00:22:15 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:22:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeff Rubens: (3) When an opponent transmits unauthorized information to a partner who takes actions that are effective and seem normal but that may not be evaluated the same way by others, should one (e) ask for an adjusted score or (f) do nothing? Richard Hills: In 2000 or 2001 Jeff Rubens conducted a similar survey on bridge sportsmanship (including one trick question). This time the trick is in the words "seem normal". It is illegal to select one's normal call which is demonstrably suggested by UI if one could select a non-suggested abnormal call which is nevertheless a logical alternative for one's class of player. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Wed Oct 28 01:55:33 2009 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:55:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) In-Reply-To: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> References: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Conditions of contest should exclude as much as possible the possibility of improving your chances for the overall event by losing particular matches. When you get into round robins you get those situations (see soccer, Austria-Germany 1982 - or the other way around). The spirit of the WBF conditions of contest is to try to win every match, and it is a good choice in paper, and we stick by it. However, we can construe many examples where that can be argued from a competitive point of view. Imagine a team on the last match of a round robin, needing only 6 VPs to qualify in a position where they can not choose opponents on the next stage, and with best positions out of reach. With a good card on the first half, and KO starting one hour after the end of the second half, should they play to win the match? Should the tactics of just letting the boards "pass by" without much effort be condemned? How? It is a no win situation from the team?s point of view. You play to win every match, you damage your chances of victory. You play to win the event, you breach the CoC. My personal opinion (which does not override the CoC of course) is that you should be able to play to maximize your chances within the scope of the CoC and other regulations. On the current WBF CoC, my approach is to "do not consciously play under par", allowing for lower levels of concentration, motivation, etc -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Marvin L French Sent: ter?a-feira, 27 de Outubro de 2009 22:33 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) In the November 2009 issue of The Bridge World, Jeff Rubens editorial is entitled You Can Only Lose, and proceeds with a preamble followed by 12 questions. I will relay to BLML the questions one at a time, to avoid a huge cluttered-up result if I sent all at once. For some of them I'll include my proposed response, and y'all can bless or condemn it. For any responses that seem to be a consensus, I will relay that consensus to Jeff. ###### There are many situations-a depressingly large number--in which a player faced with a behavioral choice can only lose: *Whatever action is taken*, a group of people, usually including some respected voices in the bridge community will say that it is wrong. These circumstances include: (1) An entrant can improve its chances of winning a tournament by impairing its chances in a part of the event, say a particular match. In that match, should the entrant (a) try to win or (b) try to lose? ######### L72A. Observance of Laws The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst (sic) complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws. Where are the ethical standards pertaining to this situation? I believe Edgar Kaplan said play to lose a match if that increases your chance to win the event. Is that acceptable? WBF General Conditions of Contest May 2009: The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. Does that mean win the event or win every match? I think it means win every match. My tentative answer is to play to win at all times, but don't strain yourself if losing would be a benefit. For instance, play your weakest pair throughout a team match, but tell the team to play their best. I can't cite official justification for that, however. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 28 03:17:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:17:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] UI [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Either imps or matchpoints Brd: 6 Dlr: East Vul: East-West The bidding has gone (my bidding matrix places West on the left): WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 2C (1) 4S 5C Pass Pass X (2) Pass ? (1) In the Precision style (2) Break in tempo You, North, hold: 432 T432 KT32 32 Given that you were willing to defend an undoubled 5C contract, should you be even more willing to defend a 5C contract doubled for penalty?? William ("Kojak") Schoder: >>Having stayed out of responding or getting involved in BLML >>discussions for a long time I can't let this one go by without >>comment, since it goes to the heart of UI and the laws. Maybe it's >>the effects of having given up drinking, recovering from a new knee >>operation, old age, or something like that but I could not keep my >>fingers off the keyboard. >> >>East is correct in labeling South's action as UI. North's call of 5 >>Spades cannot be stopped or cancelled, but if E/W are damaged by the >>5 spade call the TD should adjust the score. The table Director: "No infringement has taken place as South has taken a bid of DBL after pause." William ("Kojak") Schoder: >>I would only hope that the TD was trying to say that the delay and >>call by South is not in itself an infringement of law. >> >>But I don't see how North can justify the call of 5 spades with the >>information of the delay which IS AN INFRINGEMENT. >> >>Therefore the score should be adjusted (and the TD -- if I'm right on >>what he meant to say -- needs to use more explicit and correct words). >> >>Kojak Harald Skj?ran: >I agree with all Kojak (and others) say about the TD's performance. > >However, I don't agree with the conclusion. To me, the double is in no >way for penalties. It shows a hand with a lot of playing strength, with >some defense. For me, pass with the North hand is not a LA - bidding 5S >would be absolutely automatic. > >To make a decision as a TD I'd poll NS's peers. If passing showed to be >a LA, I'd adjust to 5Cx. Richard Hills Assume, for the sake of argument, that I am Harald's peer in my hand evaluation skills. Does that mean that I would also find a bid of 5S absolutely automatic? It ain't necessarily so. Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and **using the methods of the partnership**, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Richard Hills: Harald and partner have the **method** of playing high-level competitive doubles as a lot of playing strength with some defence. But the Ali-Hills partnership have the Stone Age **method** of playing a double of 4S or higher as unequivocally for penalties (our reasoning is that "a priori" it is easier to win three tricks defending against 5Cx than it is to win eleven tricks declaring 5S). Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 28 03:39:04 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:39:04 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <8702C5128AB1436291FF2E9DBCCF529E@MARVLAPTOP> (1) An entrant can improve its chances of winning a tournament by impairing its chances in a part of the event, say a particular match. In that match, should the entrant (a) try to win or (b) try to lose? Richard Hills wrote: > > In my opinion it is not a question of ethical standards, but > rather > a question of what idiosyncratic regulations have been enacted by > the various Regulating Authorities. > > > Examples > > (a) The American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) has a regulation > that a contestant must do his best to win each board. Thus > playing badly deliberately would be a breach of regulation in an > ACBL event. > Okay, there's the answer to Jeff for question (1) The actual language from the ACBL Conditions of Contest, which apply to all ACBL events: PLAY 5. Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's long-term interest That is dated December 2008, so I presume it's current. I also presume Jeff wants answers for ACBL-land, so that's it. The answer is (b), there is no choice, one down and 11 to go. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 28 05:39:19 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:39:19 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 Message-ID: <688A6AA64F724A4DA78044C3344A2215@MARVLAPTOP> (4) Upon the occurrence of an irregularity that engenders a disproportionately harsh adjustment, should the opponents of the infractor (g) enforce the rules, or (h) ignore the infraction? ########### Not worded well, as it is TDs who enforce the rules, not players. If attention has not been drawn to the irregularity it is permissible to ignore it, but not for the purpose of "dumping.". Otherwise: Law 9B1(a) : The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. According to the ACBL's Introduction to the Laws, the word "should" means not doing so is an infraction that is not often penalized. In the 1997 Laws this was a "must," no choice. Now I guess you can call the TD or not, perhaps depending on who the opponents are. If the TD hears that you have waived the rectification of an irregularity, per Law 10B he/she may either allow or cancel the waiver. If the TD is at the table, Law 81C5 says the he/she may waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. That makes me wonder: If a waiver request may be granted only "for cause" by the TD, how can it be acceptable for players to waive rectification for no cause in the TD's absence? So I guess the answer is that both (g) and (h) are correct, it's up to you whether you want to ignore an infraction or not. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 28 06:27:43 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:27:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) In-Reply-To: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> References: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <24840631.1256707663513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Marvin L French > ###### > There are many situations-a depressingly large number--in which a > player faced with a behavioral choice can only lose: *Whatever > action is taken*, a group of people, usually including some > respected voices in the bridge community will say that it is wrong. > These circumstances include: > > (1) An entrant can improve its chances of winning a tournament by > impairing its chances in a part of the event, say a particular > match. In that match, should the entrant (a) try to win or (b) try > to lose? I think this is the wrong angle to look at this problem. If such a situation arises, it usually is a flaw in the conditions of the tournament. The players should not be blamed for how they handle an unfortunate situation in which they never should have been. I consider the approach taken by the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup a good approach to limit this problem: o the top teams after the round robin select their quarterfinal opponents. Thus only rarely can you avoid a particular opponent by losing (*), by you can avoid a particular opponent by winning. o there is a carry over. (*) other than by losing so much that you don't make the quarterfinals. Thomas Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Oct 28 08:55:34 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:55:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) In-Reply-To: <24840631.1256707663513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> <24840631.1256707663513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: 2009/10/28 Thomas Dehn : > > Marvin L French >> ###### >> There are many situations-a depressingly large number--in which a >> player faced with a behavioral choice can only lose: *Whatever >> action is taken*, a group of people, usually including some >> respected voices in the bridge community will say that it is wrong. >> These circumstances include: >> >> (1) An entrant can improve its chances of winning a tournament by >> impairing its chances in a part of the event, say a particular >> match. In that match, should the entrant (a) try to win or (b) try >> to lose? > > I think this is the wrong angle to look at this problem. > If such a situation arises, it usually is a flaw in the conditions > of the tournament. The players should not be blamed > for how they handle an unfortunate situation in which > they never should have been. > > I consider the approach taken by the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup > a good approach to limit this problem: > o the top teams after the round robin select their quarterfinal > opponents. Thus only rarely can you avoid a particular opponent > by losing (*), by you can avoid a particular opponent by winning. > o there is a carry over. > > (*) other than by losing so much that you don't make the quarterfinals. I agree with your comments regarding the BB/VC (applies to the Senior Bowl) as well. But "dumping" might still be your winning tactics. Suppose prior to the last RR match, your team is securely qualified for the QF, and whatever you do in the last match, youl'll come in 4th or 5th. Thus, the last result doesn't matter to you at all. You're playing a "weak" team surprisingly being in 8th position, and one of the toughest teams (the pretournament favourite to win) is in 9th position. Your best tactic might be to lose the last match. > > > Thomas > > Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! > http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 28 10:34:04 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:34:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) In-Reply-To: References: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> <24840631.1256707663513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4AE8100C.3000505@skynet.be> I think most of you have the wrong idea about Rubens' questions, and Marv's posting of them (thank you, Marv). The question is not "how do you propose to end this practice?" but "should this practice be against the laws or not?". Personally, my opinion is that an organisation should do as much as they can to reduce the possibility of dumping, but that it is allowed after that. If I decide that the best tactic in a particular swiss is to lose a few early rounds, who are you to stop me? And if you believe such tactic is not a good one - then don't use swiss movements. Herman. Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/10/28 Thomas Dehn : >> Marvin L French >>> ###### >>> There are many situations-a depressingly large number--in which a >>> player faced with a behavioral choice can only lose: *Whatever >>> action is taken*, a group of people, usually including some >>> respected voices in the bridge community will say that it is wrong. >>> These circumstances include: >>> >>> (1) An entrant can improve its chances of winning a tournament by >>> impairing its chances in a part of the event, say a particular >>> match. In that match, should the entrant (a) try to win or (b) try >>> to lose? >> I think this is the wrong angle to look at this problem. >> If such a situation arises, it usually is a flaw in the conditions >> of the tournament. The players should not be blamed >> for how they handle an unfortunate situation in which >> they never should have been. >> >> I consider the approach taken by the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup >> a good approach to limit this problem: >> o the top teams after the round robin select their quarterfinal >> opponents. Thus only rarely can you avoid a particular opponent >> by losing (*), by you can avoid a particular opponent by winning. >> o there is a carry over. >> >> (*) other than by losing so much that you don't make the quarterfinals. > > I agree with your comments regarding the BB/VC (applies to the Senior > Bowl) as well. But "dumping" might still be your winning tactics. > Suppose prior to the last RR match, your team is securely qualified > for the QF, and whatever you do in the last match, youl'll come in 4th > or 5th. Thus, the last result doesn't matter to you at all. You're > playing a "weak" team surprisingly being in 8th position, and one of > the toughest teams (the pretournament favourite to win) is in 9th > position. Your best tactic might be to lose the last match. >> >> Thomas >> >> Comedy-Battle! Jetzt ablachen und voten! Neue Comedians, Spontanhumoristen und Nachwuchs-Spa?macher machen gute Laune - bestimmen Sie den Wochensieger! >> http://comedy-battle.arcor.de/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 28 10:37:37 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:37:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (2) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AE810E1.3030901@skynet.be> I am with Marv on this one. The laws of bridge provide for full disclosure, and the alerting regulations MUST encompass that. Thus, I frequently "pseudo-alert" bids that are not alertable (like doubles) when they are very strange, and I alert passes in situations where we play conventions that would not be expected. For example: (1x) - pass - (1y) - 1NT shows the other suits, starting from 4-4, with very few points. So I alert a pass in fourth seat, saying there will not be 4 cards in at least one of the other two suits. Some people tell me I say too much to my opponents. I believe they are wrong. Herman. Marvin L French wrote: > In the November 2009 issue of The Bridge World, Jeff Rubens > editorial is entitled You Can Only Lose, and proceeds with a > preamble followed by 12 questions. I will relay to BLML the > questions one at a time, to avoid a huge cluttered-up result if I > sent all at once. For some of them I'll include my proposed > response, and y'all can bless or condemn it. For any responses that > seem to be a consensus, I will relay that consensus to Jeff. > > ########### > (2) Local rules sometimes conflict with what is widely believed to > be the spirit and nature of the game; for example, a pair may be > allowed profitability to conceal understandings from its opponents. > In such an instance, should the competitor (c) follow the rules to > best advantage [as required by the principles of sportsmanship, > under which it is necessary to win within the rules] or (d) follow > one's heart by not taking advantage of the flaws in the rules [as > required to protect the integrity of the game]? > > I have an example of this. The ACBL does not require full disclosure > of auction subtleties during the Clarification Period, except when > answering a question. If a treatment does not require an Alert or > pre-disclosure, disclosing it is voluntary: For instance, I will say > "The two notrump to my one club opening could have bypassed a weak > major suit." That's because I choose Jeff's (d), and because of the > following: > > Principle of Full Disclosure: > The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically > required in volunterring information to the opponents. Quite often, > the declaring side in an actively ethical partnership will volunteer > such information before the opening lead is made. > > Evidently being "actively ethical" is optional. My answer to Jeff is > (d), but both the Laws and the ACBL should require this answer. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 28 10:51:33 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:51:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (3) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AE81425.6020700@skynet.be> I don't understand the dilemma in this one. Surely you ask for rulings when opponents do something wrong. And I do indeed sometimes let it pass, for a little old (or young) lady. But that is not a dilemma. Why should it be "wrong" to call the TD? Herman. Marvin L French wrote: > In the November 2009 issue of The Bridge World, Jeff Rubens > editorial is entitled You Can Only Lose, and proceeds with a > preamble followed by 12 questions. I will relay to BLML the > questions one at a time, to avoid a huge cluttered-up result if I > sent all at once. For some of them I'll include my proposed > response, and y'all can bless or condemn it. For any responses that > seem to be a consensus, I will relay that consensus to Jeff. > > ##### > (3) When an opponent transmits unauthorized information to a partner > who takes actions that are effective and seem normal but that may > not be evaluated the same way by others, should one (e) ask for an > adjusted score or (f) do nothing? > ###### > > Well, you don't ask for an adjusted score, that's not polite, you > just tell the TD what happened. > > Anyway, there is no requirement to call the TD if a possible > irregularity of this nature has not been commented upon. You can say > nothing and let it pass. However, you have the right to call the TD > at the end of play if you wish when there is posssible damage, > there's nothing wrong with that. The TD will protect your opponents > from any abuse of that right. And you must make that call, if you > draw attention to an apparent irregularity, per Law 9B1(a) > > Depends on who the opponent is, perhaps. Inexperienced? Forget it, > their UI usually helps your side and usually goes unnoticed by the > partner. Pretty blonde? Depends on how old you are and your marital > status. Mean opponents or a pro-client pair? Call the TD for sure. > > 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 28 10:56:51 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:56:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 In-Reply-To: <688A6AA64F724A4DA78044C3344A2215@MARVLAPTOP> References: <688A6AA64F724A4DA78044C3344A2215@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4AE81563.1080408@skynet.be> I have a particular opinion about this one, because I am an (often active) TD myself. I do not let any infraction pass, because I know the players will expect me to do the same by them if I am TD. That way: - two weeks ago I made an overtrick because I prohibited a player to lead a particular suit when his partner had played before him (as per L57). - last saturday I conceded an overtrick in a game that should have gone two off because I allowed declarer to ask me to play hearts when my partner had made an unestablished revoke (because of the penalty card she now had). I would not criticize a (non-TD) player for not doing the same though. But I will certainly not criticize any player for following my example. If a law seems too harsh, work to have it changed, but don't stop following it. Herman. Marvin L French wrote: > (4) Upon the occurrence of an irregularity that engenders a > disproportionately harsh adjustment, should the opponents of the > infractor (g) enforce the rules, or (h) ignore the infraction? > > ########### > > Not worded well, as it is TDs who enforce the rules, not players. > > If attention has not been drawn to the irregularity it is > permissible to ignore it, but not for the purpose of "dumping.". > Otherwise: > > Law 9B1(a) : The Director should be summoned at once when attention > is drawn to an irregularity. > > According to the ACBL's Introduction to the Laws, the word "should" > means not doing so is an infraction that is not often penalized. In > the 1997 Laws this was a "must," no choice. Now I guess you can call > the TD or not, perhaps depending on who the opponents are. > > If the TD hears that you have waived the rectification of an > irregularity, per Law 10B he/she may either allow or cancel the > waiver. If the TD is at the table, Law 81C5 says the he/she may > waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request > of the non-offending side. > > That makes me wonder: If a waiver request may be granted only "for > cause" by the TD, how can it be acceptable for players to waive > rectification for no cause in the TD's absence? > > So I guess the answer is that both (g) and (h) are correct, it's up > to you whether you want to ignore an infraction or not. > > 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Oct 28 11:25:00 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:25:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 In-Reply-To: <4AE81563.1080408@skynet.be> References: <688A6AA64F724A4DA78044C3344A2215@MARVLAPTOP> <4AE81563.1080408@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2009/10/28 Herman De Wael : > I have a particular opinion about this one, because I am an (often > active) TD myself. I do not let any infraction pass, because I know the > players will expect me to do the same by them if I am TD. > That way: > - two weeks ago I made an overtrick because I prohibited a player to > lead a particular suit when his partner had played before him (as per L57). > - last saturday I conceded an overtrick in a game that should have gone > two off because I allowed declarer to ask me to play hearts when my > partner had made an unestablished revoke (because of the penalty card > she now had). > I would not criticize a (non-TD) player for not doing the same though. > But I will certainly not criticize any player for following my example. > If a law seems too harsh, work to have it changed, but don't stop > following it. > Herman. > > Marvin L French wrote: >> (4) Upon the occurrence of an irregularity that engenders a >> disproportionately harsh adjustment, should the opponents of the >> infractor (g) enforce the rules, or (h) ignore the infraction? >> >> ########### >> >> Not worded well, as it is TDs who enforce the rules, not players. >> >> If attention has not been drawn to the irregularity it is >> permissible to ignore it, but not for the purpose of "dumping.". >> Otherwise: >> >> Law 9B1(a) : The Director should be summoned at once when attention >> is drawn to an irregularity. >> >> According to the ACBL's Introduction to the Laws, the word "should" >> means not doing so is an infraction that is not often penalized. In >> the 1997 Laws this was a "must," no choice. Now I guess you can call >> the TD or not, perhaps depending on who the opponents are. >> >> If the TD hears that you have waived the rectification of an >> irregularity, per Law 10B he/she may either allow or cancel the >> waiver. If the TD is at the table, Law 81C5 says the he/she may >> waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request >> of the non-offending side. >> >> That makes me wonder: If a waiver request may be granted only "for >> cause" by the TD, how can it be acceptable for players to waive >> rectification for no cause in the TD's absence? >> >> So I guess the answer is that both (g) and (h) are correct, it's up >> to you whether you want to ignore an infraction or not. I'm in line with Herman here. When it comes to UI cases, if I agree with the decision taken by an opponent with UI, I'd not call the TD. Even if I think a TD/AC might rule different. >> >> 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 28 11:54:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:54:21 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Law 72A - Observance of Laws > > "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance > with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than > other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and > ethical standards set out in these laws." > > > Examples > > (a) The American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) has a regulation > that a contestant must do his best to win each board. Thus > playing badly deliberately would be a breach of regulation in an > ACBL event. > > (b) The World Bridge Federation has a regulation that requires > best endeavours on the part of players. The Conditions of Contest > for the World Championships in 2001 said: > > "It is not permissible for a partnership to play by design to > obtain a session score inferior to that of its opponents". > +=+ In reference to the above extracts I can say that when we were drafting the 2007 laws I put a question to colleagues in these terms: [Grattan: there is a view that the matter in the final sentence of Law 72A should be removed. It is not something to hang my hat on, of course, and in Verona my draft was changed in the subcommittee so that it now refers to a single board where I had made reference to a session. The WBF has been very clear on the subject ever since Yokohama, where sanctions were applied to a team for infraction of a law that was not wholly explicit. The WBF appeals committee held that the game had been played unfairly. If the WBF considers that is the standard by which the game should be played then I believe we are under an obligation for the laws to say so. An opt-out clause is possible, perhaps.] ..... and I indicated my fall-back position if we failed to reach a consensus: [Default: Unless the WBF recants on its position I would simply change "..context of a single board and the whole.." back to ".... context of a session and the whole...". But, as a corporate group, where do we stand? ] ........................................................... One of my colleagues responded: <> Another replied: <<72A I would prefer not to add to the 1997 Law thinking it more a matter of Regulation. But if I am in a minority.so be it. But the last sentence certainly should say "applies in the context of a single session and of the whole tournament.">> ....................................................................... There were other opinions. Our final product set a principle but was intended to remit to Regulating Authorities how this should apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 28 12:28:29 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:28:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AE82ADD.4040709@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2009/10/27 WILLIAM SCHODER > > > Having stayed out of responding or getting involved in BLML > discussions for a long time I can't let this one go by without > comment, since it goes to the heart of UI and the laws. Maybe > it's the effects of having given up drinking, recovering from a > new knee operation, old age, or something like that but I could > not keep my fingers off the keyboard. > > East is correct in labeling South's action as UI. > North's call of 5 Spades cannot be stopped or cancelled, but if > E/W are damaged by the 5 spade call the TD should adjust the score. > > I would only hope that the TD was trying to say that the delay and > call by South is not in itself an infringement of law. > But I don't see how South can justify the call of 5 spades with > the information of the delay which IS AN INFRINGEMENT. > > Therefore the score should be adjusted (and the TD -- if I'm > right on what he meant to say -- needs to use more explicit and > correct words ). > > Kojak > > > > I agree with all Kojak (and others) say about the TD's performance. > > However, I don't agree with the conclusion. To me, the double is in no > way for penalties. It shows a hand with a lot of playing strength, > with some defense. For me, pass with the north hand is not a LA - > bidding 5S would be absolutely automatic. To make a decision as a TD > I'd poll NS's peers. If passing showed to be a LA, I'd adjust to 5Cx. AG : let's begin the polling. I vote for pass. Next time, West will have 1246 and 5C will go down, as will 5S. Whence passing surely is a LA. From blml at arcor.de Wed Oct 28 12:28:27 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:28:27 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) In-Reply-To: References: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> <24840631.1256707663513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <19017793.1256729307441.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/10/28 Thomas Dehn : > > > > Marvin L French > >> ###### > >> There are many situations-a depressingly large number--in which a > >> player faced with a behavioral choice can only lose: *Whatever > >> action is taken*, a group of people, usually including some > >> respected voices in the bridge community will say that it is wrong. > >> These circumstances include: > >> > >> (1) An entrant can improve its chances of winning a tournament by > >> impairing its chances in a part of the event, say a particular > >> match. In that match, should the entrant (a) try to win or (b) try > >> to lose? > > > > I think this is the wrong angle to look at this problem. > > If such a situation arises, it usually is a flaw in the conditions > > of the tournament. The players should not be blamed > > for how they handle an unfortunate situation in which > > they never should have been. > > > > I consider the approach taken by the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup > > a good approach to limit this problem: > > o the top teams after the round robin select their quarterfinal > > opponents. Thus only rarely can you avoid a particular opponent > > by losing (*), by you can avoid a particular opponent by winning. > > o there is a carry over. > > > > (*) other than by losing so much that you don't make the quarterfinals. > > I agree with your comments regarding the BB/VC (applies to the Senior > Bowl) as well. But "dumping" might still be your winning tactics. > Suppose prior to the last RR match, your team is securely qualified > for the QF, and whatever you do in the last match, youl'll come in 4th > or 5th. Thus, the last result doesn't matter to you at all. In the BB/VC, if you are fifth, you might end up playing against any team in the top four in the quarterfinals. If you are fourth, you might up playing against any team placed 5-8. Thus, 4th usually is preferable over 5th. For example, if the first place team has a maximum carryover against you, they might prefer to play against you rather than against the lower placed teams against which they have less carry over. (see section 8.1.2 of the supplemental conditions) Then, the potential difference between a 25-0 win and a 0-25 loss usually is more than one place. So, yes, while some limited situations exist where dumping a match might be preferable, they seem to be quite rare in the current BB/VC approach. 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 Wed Oct 28 12:44:56 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:44:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: <4AE82ADD.4040709@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AE82ADD.4040709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <26704350.1256730296915.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > > 2009/10/27 WILLIAM SCHODER > > > > > Having stayed out of responding or getting involved in BLML > > discussions for a long time I can't let this one go by without > > comment, since it goes to the heart of UI and the laws. Maybe > > it's the effects of having given up drinking, recovering from a > > new knee operation, old age, or something like that but I could > > not keep my fingers off the keyboard. > > > > East is correct in labeling South's action as UI. > > North's call of 5 Spades cannot be stopped or cancelled, but if > > E/W are damaged by the 5 spade call the TD should adjust the score. > > > > I would only hope that the TD was trying to say that the delay and > > call by South is not in itself an infringement of law. > > But I don't see how South can justify the call of 5 spades with > > the information of the delay which IS AN INFRINGEMENT. > > > > Therefore the score should be adjusted (and the TD -- if I'm > > right on what he meant to say -- needs to use more explicit and > > correct words ). > > > > Kojak > > > > > > > > I agree with all Kojak (and others) say about the TD's performance. > > > > However, I don't agree with the conclusion. To me, the double is in no > > way for penalties. It shows a hand with a lot of playing strength, > > with some defense. For me, pass with the north hand is not a LA - > > bidding 5S would be absolutely automatic. To make a decision as a TD > > I'd poll NS's peers. If passing showed to be a LA, I'd adjust to 5Cx. > AG : let's begin the polling. I vote for pass. Next time, West will have > 1246 and 5C will go down, as will 5S. Whence passing surely is a LA. As for the poll, I think it depends on vulnerability, form of scoring, and on how much I expect partner to have. I consider both passing and bidding 5S, and I consider both to be LAs. 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Oct 28 13:13:05 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:13:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) In-Reply-To: <19017793.1256729307441.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> <24840631.1256707663513.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <19017793.1256729307441.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: 2009/10/28 Thomas Dehn : > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> 2009/10/28 Thomas Dehn : >> > >> > Marvin L French >> >> ###### >> >> There are many situations-a depressingly large number--in which a >> >> player faced with a behavioral choice can only lose: *Whatever >> >> action is taken*, a group of people, usually including some >> >> respected voices in the bridge community will say that it is wrong. >> >> These circumstances include: >> >> >> >> (1) An entrant can improve its chances of winning a tournament by >> >> impairing its chances in a part of the event, say a particular >> >> match. In that match, should the entrant (a) try to win or (b) try >> >> to lose? >> > >> > I think this is the wrong angle to look at this problem. >> > If such a situation arises, it usually is a flaw in the conditions >> > of the tournament. The players should not be blamed >> > for how they handle an unfortunate situation in which >> > they never should have been. >> > >> > I consider the approach taken by the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup >> > a good approach to limit this problem: >> > o the top teams after the round robin select their quarterfinal >> > opponents. Thus only rarely can you avoid a particular opponent >> > by losing (*), by you can avoid a particular opponent by winning. >> > o there is a carry over. >> > >> > (*) other than by losing so much that you don't make the quarterfinals. >> >> I agree with your comments regarding the BB/VC (applies to the Senior >> Bowl) as well. But "dumping" might still be your winning tactics. >> Suppose prior to the last RR match, your team is securely qualified >> for the QF, and whatever you do in the last match, youl'll come in 4th >> or 5th. Thus, the last result doesn't matter to you at all. > > In the BB/VC, if you are fifth, you might end up playing > against any team in the top four in the quarterfinals. If you are fourth, > you might up playing against any team placed 5-8. > Thus, 4th usually is preferable over 5th. > > For example, if the first place team has a maximum carryover against you, > they might prefer to play against you rather than against the lower > placed teams against which they have less carry over. > (see section 8.1.2 of the supplemental conditions) > > Then, the potential difference between a 25-0 win and a 0-25 loss usually > is more than one place. > > So, yes, while some limited situations exist where > dumping a match might be preferable, they seem to be > quite rare in the current BB/VC approach. You're right. I probably only thought of this from "my" teams perspective. 4th or 5th (through 8th) is equal for our guys, since they'll then either as 4th get the team the three other top teams don't want to play against, or gets "picked" by the 4th team. (Maybe with the exception that a team with maximum c/o would chose them - haven't happened this far though.) > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Oct 28 13:15:58 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:15:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: <26704350.1256730296915.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <4AE82ADD.4040709@ulb.ac.be> <26704350.1256730296915.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: 2009/10/28 Thomas Dehn : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> > 2009/10/27 WILLIAM SCHODER > >> > >> > ? ? Having stayed out of responding or getting involved in BLML >> > ? ? discussions for a long time I can't let this one go by without >> > ? ? comment, since it goes to the heart of UI and the laws. ?Maybe >> > ? ? it's the effects of having given up drinking, recovering from a >> > ? ? new knee operation, old age, or something like that but I could >> > ? ? not keep my fingers off the keyboard. >> > >> > ? ? East is correct in labeling South's action as UI. >> > ? ? North's call of 5 Spades cannot be stopped or cancelled, but if >> > ? ? E/W are damaged by the 5 spade call the TD should adjust the score. >> > >> > ? ? I would only hope that the TD was trying to say that the delay and >> > ? ? call by South is not in itself an infringement of law. >> > ? ? But I don't see how South can justify the call of 5 spades with >> > ? ? the information of the delay which IS AN INFRINGEMENT. >> > >> > ? ? Therefore ?the score should be adjusted ?(and the TD ?-- if I'm >> > ? ? right on what he meant to say -- ?needs to use more explicit and >> > ? ? correct words ). >> > >> > ? ? Kojak >> > >> > >> > >> > ? ? I agree with all Kojak (and others) say about the TD's performance. >> > >> > However, I don't agree with the conclusion. To me, the double is in no >> > way for penalties. It shows a hand with a lot of ? ?playing strength, >> > with some defense. For me, pass with the north hand is not a LA - >> > bidding 5S would be absolutely automatic. To make a decision as a TD >> > I'd poll NS's peers. If passing showed to be a LA, I'd adjust to 5Cx. >> AG : let's begin the polling. I vote for pass. Next time, West will have >> 1246 and 5C will go down, as will 5S. Whence passing surely is a LA. > > As for the poll, I think it depends on vulnerability, form of scoring, and > on how much I expect partner to have. > I consider both passing and bidding 5S, and I consider both to be LAs. It all depends mostly on your style regarding such a jump overcall,and your doubling style thereafter. I know people who play the double as murder - they just got opps where they want them. Where pass is the only LA, you would already have bid over 4S with any hand that should bid 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 28 13:49:21 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:49:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: References: <4AE82ADD.4040709@ulb.ac.be> <26704350.1256730296915.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4AE83DD1.8090605@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2009/10/28 Thomas Dehn : > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >>> >>>> 2009/10/27 WILLIAM SCHODER > >>>> >>>> Having stayed out of responding or getting involved in BLML >>>> discussions for a long time I can't let this one go by without >>>> comment, since it goes to the heart of UI and the laws. Maybe >>>> it's the effects of having given up drinking, recovering from a >>>> new knee operation, old age, or something like that but I could >>>> not keep my fingers off the keyboard. >>>> >>>> East is correct in labeling South's action as UI. >>>> North's call of 5 Spades cannot be stopped or cancelled, but if >>>> E/W are damaged by the 5 spade call the TD should adjust the score. >>>> >>>> I would only hope that the TD was trying to say that the delay and >>>> call by South is not in itself an infringement of law. >>>> But I don't see how South can justify the call of 5 spades with >>>> the information of the delay which IS AN INFRINGEMENT. >>>> >>>> Therefore the score should be adjusted (and the TD -- if I'm >>>> right on what he meant to say -- needs to use more explicit and >>>> correct words ). >>>> >>>> Kojak >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with all Kojak (and others) say about the TD's performance. >>>> >>>> However, I don't agree with the conclusion. To me, the double is in no >>>> way for penalties. It shows a hand with a lot of playing strength, >>>> with some defense. For me, pass with the north hand is not a LA - >>>> bidding 5S would be absolutely automatic. To make a decision as a TD >>>> I'd poll NS's peers. If passing showed to be a LA, I'd adjust to 5Cx. >>>> >>> AG : let's begin the polling. I vote for pass. Next time, West will have >>> 1246 and 5C will go down, as will 5S. Whence passing surely is a LA. >>> >> As for the poll, I think it depends on vulnerability, form of scoring, and >> on how much I expect partner to have. >> I consider both passing and bidding 5S, and I consider both to be LAs. >> > > It all depends mostly on your style regarding such a jump overcall,and > your doubling style thereafter. I know people who play the double as > murder - they just got opps where they want them. Where pass is the > only LA, you would already have bid over 4S with any hand that should > bid now. > AG : I think that nobody would pretend that pass is the only LA. What we need to correct the score is merely that 5S not be the only LA. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 28 14:21:38 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:21:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) In-Reply-To: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> References: <2406B49FBAC2469BB533A3D7823F5558@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > In the November 2009 issue of The Bridge World, Jeff Rubens > editorial is entitled You Can Only Lose, and proceeds with a > preamble followed by 12 questions. I will relay to BLML the > questions one at a time, to avoid a huge cluttered-up result if I > sent all at once. For some of them I'll include my proposed > response, and y'all can bless or condemn it. For any responses that > seem to be a consensus, I will relay that consensus to Jeff. > > ###### > There are many situations-a depressingly large number--in which a > player faced with a behavioral choice can only lose: *Whatever > action is taken*, a group of people, usually including some > respected voices in the bridge community will say that it is wrong. > These circumstances include: > > (1) An entrant can improve its chances of winning a tournament by > impairing its chances in a part of the event, say a particular > match. In that match, should the entrant (a) try to win or (b) try > to lose? > > ######### > L72A. Observance of Laws > The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants > whilst (sic) complying with the lawful procedures and ethical > standards set out in these Laws. > > Where are the ethical standards pertaining to this situation? I > believe Edgar Kaplan said play to lose a match if that increases > your chance to win the event. Is that acceptable? > > WBF General Conditions of Contest May 2009: > The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all > times and in all circumstances. > > Does that mean win the event or win every match? I think it means > win every match. > > My tentative answer is to play to win at all times, but don't strain > yourself if losing would be a benefit. For instance, play your > weakest pair throughout a team match, but tell the team to play > their best. I can't cite official justification for that, however. When you enter an event at a duplicate bridge club or tournament, you commit yourself to playing until you are eliminated, you withdraw on a timely basis (if the contest allows), or the event ends. That is the event you are playing in, and that is what L72A tells you you should play to win. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 28 16:45:29 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:45:29 -0700 Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:44:56 BST." <26704350.1256730296915.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <200910281534.IAA30017@mailhub.irvine.com> Thomas wrote: > > AG : let's begin the polling. I vote for pass. Next time, West will have > > 1246 and 5C will go down, as will 5S. Whence passing surely is a LA. > > As for the poll, I think it depends on vulnerability, form of scoring, and > on how much I expect partner to have. > I consider both passing and bidding 5S, and I consider both to be LAs. The vulnerability was given in the original post: your side is non-vul. vs. vul. The form of scoring was not given, and I think that's an important piece of information. At matchpoints, bidding a phantom 5S when 5C was going down 1 is a bad thing. At IMPs, it's not necessarily bad if both contracts are down 1; it's relatively cheap insurance against going -750 (or -950!) if 5C was making. As for Thomas' last criterion, "how much I expect partner to have" (which probably should be subdivided into "how much I expect partner to have in spades" and "how much I expect partner to have outside spades"), I think one of the things everyone else on this thread, including me, has failed to point out, is that the director and committee may need to get some information about N-S's methods before making a ruling. A lot of players would be reluctant to jump to 4S over a natural opening bid with a good hand, opposite a partner who has not yet passed. -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 28 18:31:59 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:31:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 5 Message-ID: (5) In scenario (3), if the opponents ignore the possibility of an adjustment, should the transmitting side (i) call the Director or (j) do nothing. Marv (3) involved an irregularity related to UI. Jeff knows there is no obligation to call attention to an infraction of law committed by one's side, so I guess he is wondering if the "spirit of the game" says to do so. The answer is (j). As an example, no one thinks it in the spiriti of the game to call attention to a revoke by one's side. Nevertheless, a situation could arise in which calling the TD about UI committed by one's own side is advisable. That is at end of play when you are sure your side has not committed an infraction but the opponents are obviously unhappy, raising eyebrows and such. Rather than risk damage to your reputation, get the TD involved. Another possibility is that your partner has indeed committed an obvious infraction but opponents don't realize it. I think sportsmanship, concern for reputation, and partner education point to a TD call, but there is no legal requirement to do so. If an adjustment is just a possibility, not obvious, then saying nothing is well within the spirit of the game. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 28 18:53:39 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:53:39 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 6 and 7 Message-ID: <7A76EF24140145CA9F6980364FE0DBEF@MARVLAPTOP> (6) If declarer has no problem playing from his or dummy's cards as second hand to a trick, but may have a problem playing as fourth hand to a trick, should he (k) consider before playing as second hand or (l) play promptly as second hand and if necessary consider before playing as fourth hand? (7) If an active player has no problem deciding whether or not to win a trick, but may have a problem deciding what to lead to the next trick (or might have had such a problem if able to win the current trick), should that player (m) think before playing to the trick or (n) play promptly to the current trick and if necessary consider before leading to the next trick? ########## Slow tempo for all such plays pretty well solves these problems, so I would reply that it is advisable to play with slow tempo at all times. Sometimes that is not feasible, admittedly. Playing slowly with the intent of deceiving the opponents is not permitted, of course. Otherwise obviously slow play may deceive them, but that is at their own risk unless there is no bridge reason for the slow tempo. Anyway, "playing promptly" is something players should never do. It gives away one's holding at times, and there is no requirement for it. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 28 19:03:33 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:03:33 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 Message-ID: (8) If an active player wishes to plan for the future, should that be done (o) at earliest opportunity or (p) at the first juncture that there is a problem what to play next? ############ This question could have been included with (6) and (7), but I didn't realize it in time. Anyway, the obvious answer is (o). We are told to think through the hand without playing to the first trick, so if we always do that opponents cannot claim deception by means of tempo. If the "earliest opportunity" comes later, long thought in advance of a problem is both common and acceptable. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 28 19:20:23 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:20:23 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (9) Message-ID: <29E743C3377A4FCC98A796DD92FDAE10@MARVLAPTOP> (9) When unauthorized information may have been available, should one call the director (q) at the time of transmission or (r) when it appears that the tainted communication may have caused damaged? ####### This is an easy one. UI is not an infraction in itself, so calling the TD at the time of transmission is incorrect procedure. You *may* comment on the UI, but that is not required. If you do, saying something like "That pass was rather slow and we may need the Director later" is permitted by Law 16B2. If the opponents dispute the fact that UI may have been conveyed, the same law says that it is their responsibility to call the TD at that time, not yours. The ACBL's 1997 Laws dictated (q), but that requirement was not adopted by the ACBL in the new Laws. So (q) is wrong, but what about (r)? That is correct procedure only if the TD call comes at end of play, per Law 16B3. Calling earlier is not an infraction according to the footnote to that law, but serves no purpose since the TD can do nothing until the end of play. If he/she is passing by, however, it's okay to say, "Please hang around, we may be needing you." The benefit of these procedures is that they eliminate any harsh discussions about the UI, which should not be engaged in by either side. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 28 21:10:34 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:10:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > (5) In scenario (3), if the opponents ignore the possibility of an > adjustment, should the transmitting side (i) call the Director or > (j) do nothing. > Jeff knows there is no obligation to call attention to an infraction > of law committed by one's side, so I guess he is wondering if the > "spirit of the game" says to do so. > > The answer is (j). As an example, no one thinks it in the spiriti of > the game to call attention to a revoke by one's side. Not true IME. I've seen it happen on several occasions. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 28 23:02:52 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:02:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <19017793.1256729307441.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn asserted: >In the BB/VC, if you are fifth, you might end up playing against any team >in the top four in the quarterfinals. If you are fourth, you might up >playing against any team placed 5-8. Thus, 4th usually is preferable over >5th. [snip] Richard Hills refutes: Incorrect. 5th usually is preferable over 4th. This is because whether you are 4th or 5th you are given no choice in the selection of who your quarter-final opponent is. But if running 5th, you have a 25% chance of meeting a relatively easy opponent. If running 4th, you are guaranteed to play against the strongest available opponent. For example -> If your team is currently running 4th, and the best team in the event has had a slight hiccup in the qualifying rounds to be locked into 6th place, then teams running 1st to 3rd will carefully pick other teams, and your 4th placed team will be stuck with the Blue Team in the quarter-final. But if you dump your last match to run 5th, then your chances of a quarter- final encounter with the 6th placed Blue Team are 0%. Summary: If your second-strongest team in the event qualifies 4th, and the strongest team in the event qualifies 6th, they meet in a quarter-final. If the second-strongest team in the event qualifies 5th, and the strongest team in the event qualifies 6th, then your 5th placed team plays the easy- beat 3rd placed qualifiers, and the 6th placed Blue Team plays the easy- beat 4th placed qualifiers. 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 Oct 28 23:37:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:37:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: >We are told to think through the hand without playing to the first >trick, so if we always do that opponents cannot claim deception by >means of tempo. Richard Hills: "We" applies only to jurisdictions, such as the ACBL, which have adopted a "mandatory pause" regulation pursuant to Law 73A2: "Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick." Marvin French: >If the "earliest opportunity" comes later, long thought in advance >of a problem is both common and acceptable. Richard Hills: No and no. Long thought with a singleton at trick three in advance of a later problem at trick five is a gross infraction of Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure." Jeff Rubens: "(8) If an active player wishes to plan for the future, should that be done (o) at earliest opportunity or (p) at the first juncture that there is a problem what to play next?" Richard Hills: In ACBL-land the answer must be both (o) and (p). The answer is (o) for trick one, doing as much planning as possible during the ACBL's required "mandatory pause". But if on a later trick there is a need to switch to Plan B, then the legal answer is that the planning of Plan B must be deferred until the (p) moment of truth. In ABF-land, which lacks a "mandatory pause" regulation, the answer is (p) throughout. 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 Oct 29 00:14:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:14:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question (9) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <29E743C3377A4FCC98A796DD92FDAE10@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: David Burn: [snip] >>But this is not a mailing list for normal people; daily we grapple >>with pieces of prose whose meaning is utterly opaque, while the people >>who wrote it won't tell us what it means (either because they are >>dead, or because they do not know, or both). Jeff Rubens: "(9) When unauthorized information may have been available, should one call the director (q) at the time of transmission or (r) when it appears that the tainted communication may have caused damage?" Marvin French: >This is an easy one. [snip] >So (q) is wrong, but what about (r)? That is correct procedure only if >the TD call comes at end of play, per Law 16B3. [snip] Richard Hills: It is a bit of a worry that Jeff Rubens, a long-time associate of Edgar Kaplan, should put together a quiz on the Laws and their application without (apparently) bothering to read the 2007 Law 16. So, as Marv has pointed out, Jeff's question 9 is a category mistake, with it based on a belief that we are in a parallel universe containing a different Law 16. Or perhaps Jeff Rubens found the meaning of the 2007 Law 16 utterly opaque, so wished to survey how many other Bridge World readers also thought that the 2007 Law 16 was utterly opaque. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 29 00:17:38 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:17:38 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 10 Message-ID: <3D284565CB8949D1AD6995D2FDAE468F@MARVLAPTOP> (10) Where the Laws are ambiguous (as for example, over what constitutes an "attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction"), should one interpret a doubtful passage (s) to one's own interest or (t) unfavorably to one's own interest? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 29 00:30:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:30:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3D284565CB8949D1AD6995D2FDAE468F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Jeff Rubens: "(10) Where the Laws are ambiguous (as for example, over what constitutes an "attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction"), should one interpret a doubtful passage (s) to one's own interest or (t) unfavorably to one's own interest?" Richard Hills: Another category mistake by Jeff Rubens, who apparently has not read Law 81C2: "The Director (**not the players**) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to administer and **interpret these Laws** and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." Richard Hills: So if you are unsure which way to Lawfully proceed, then summon the Director (and, if you believe it is necessary, request to speak to the Director away from the table). 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 Thu Oct 29 01:18:14 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:18:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 In-Reply-To: <688A6AA64F724A4DA78044C3344A2215@MARVLAPTOP> References: <688A6AA64F724A4DA78044C3344A2215@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <686B40A3515D4C71820353E99256C2A2@erdos> "Marvin L French" writes: > (4) Upon the occurrence of an irregularity that engenders a > disproportionately harsh adjustment, should the opponents of the > infractor (g) enforce the rules, or (h) ignore the infraction? An example might be helpful, as there are two situations: attention can already have been drawn to an irregularity, or you can choose not to draw attention. Example with attention already drawn: West leads the CK and drops the CQ out of his hand, with AJ in South's hand; South gets an undeserved trick because the CQ is a penalty card and must be discarded when South runs another suit. Example with attention not drawn: West has the ace of trumps, but East revokes on a trick before the ace is played, and declarer takes twelve tricks. The adjusted score awards declarer all thirteen tricks. If attention has already been drawn, L9B1 says that the director should be summoned; players can still request a waiver. If attention has not been drawn, there is no obligation for even the OS to draw attention. I believe it is still proper to call the TD for a revoke; you are entitled to an undeserved trick if the opponents pull a wrong card, so you should still be entitled to an undeserved trick if they play an illegal card. However, there is no obligation to call the TD if an opponent may have made a call suggested by UI, and the TD is often not called against weaker players when the call actually chosen was reasonable. (I will call the TD even against a novice if there is a hesitation Blackwood auction, but not if a player competes after a slow pass when he does have reasonable values.) Thus I would say that (g) is correct in most, but not all, situations. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 29 02:04:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:04:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: >>...As an example, no one thinks it in the spirit of the game to call >>attention to a revoke by one's side. Eric Landau: >Not true IME. I've seen it happen on several occasions. Richard Hills: Uniquely in the Lawbook is the phrase "no obligation to" (i.e. either of the two choices is proper) in Law 72B2: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one?s own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2)." Richard Hills: And note that it is only one's established revokes which Law 72B2 gives a choice about revealing. It is compulsory to reveal a Law 62A non-established revoke (and, if a defender, suffer the consequences of a penalty card rectification). 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 Oct 29 02:29:15 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:29:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wikipedia, Irish bull: The "father" of the Irish bull is often said to be Sir Boyle Roche, who once asked "Why we should put ourselves out of our way to do anything for posterity, for what has posterity ever done for us?" Robert Frick: [snip] >When you communicate with people, you should leave out details in >order to aid comprehension, [snip] Declarer Dummy 1NT 2C 2D 2NT (1) 3NT Pass (1) The detail of an Alert was left out in order to aid comprehension. Because 2NT was not Alerted, declarer's LHO believed that dummy guaranteed holding at least one 4-card major, so LHO unsuccessfully led a minor. But since an immediate 2NT by dummy would be artificial, dummy neither guaranteed nor held a 4-card major, so a major suit lead by LHO would have defeated the game. The resulting adjusted score changed the outcome of an important ACBL knockout match. C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: "You have lived on broken hearts all your life," said Caspian, "and if you _are_ beggared, it is better to be a beggar than a slave. But where is my other friend?" "Oh, _him_?" said Pug. "Oh, take _him_ and welcome. Glad to have him off my hands. I've never seen such a drug in the market in all my born days. Priced him at five crescents in the end and even so nobody'd have him. Threw him free in with other lots and still no one would have him. Wouldn't touch him. Wouldn't look at him. Tacks, bring out Sulky." Thus Eustace was produced, and sulky he certainly looked; for though no one would want to be sold as a slave, it is perhaps even more galling to be a sort of utility slave whom no one will buy. Best wishes Shift the Ape, Narnia -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Thu Oct 29 03:31:17 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:31:17 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 11 Message-ID: <91E6FE0D341A435C8F6D3195C6EC1AD7@MARVLAPTOP> (11) Where the Laws are incomplete, (as for example, over what questions are appropriate), should one interpret a doubtful passage (u) favorably to one's own interests or (v) unfavorably to one's own interest? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 29 03:55:09 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:55:09 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 12 Message-ID: <62A5B82A355A48FD96D44AEC5B9688DD@MARVLAPTOP> 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. 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 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 29 04:03:13 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:03:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 11 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <91E6FE0D341A435C8F6D3195C6EC1AD7@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Jeff Rubens: >(11) Where the Laws are incomplete, (as for example, over what >questions are appropriate), should one interpret a doubtful passage >(u) favorably to one's own interests or (v) unfavorably to one's >own interest? Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. If the Tournament Organizer regulations are incomplete (as, for example, no tie break rule), then the Director applies Law 81B1: "The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer." And since an ACBL Director has untrammelled power under Law 81C2 to interpret the Laws (except when, for a particular Law, the ACBL Laws Commission has already done so), by definition in ACBL-land the Laws are **not** incomplete. 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 Oct 29 04:18:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:18:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <62A5B82A355A48FD96D44AEC5B9688DD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >Jeff may ask what the difference is between unauthorized information >and extraneous information, but I don't know the answer. Anyone? 2007 Definitions: "Extraneous - not part of the lawful procedures of the game." Richard Hills: Asking a passing caddy for a glass of water is extraneous. A nervous habit of drinking from that glass of water only when holding the ace of spades is unauthorized to partner, but authorized to opponents. In the excellent book The Bridge Adventures of Androcles MacThick, the Reverend Bulcon had a nervous habit of always holding a void in clubs. The Director ruled that this void was AI to everyone, and to ensure fairness arranged the movements so that the Revd Bulcon would always be stationary in the North seat. 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 Oct 29 06:48:09 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:48:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Finger in the dike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: An oldie but a goodie attached. Points of interest: (1) In Aussie national events, the table Director always attends the Appeals Committee hearing. (2) Although the Directors and the Appeals Committee both ruled "table result stands", their reasoning was significantly different. * * * Australian National Championships ANC Swiss (Butler) Pairs Wednesday 3rd August 2005 Round Two Board 25 Imps Dlr: North Vul: East-West 9843 A86 64 AKJ3 KT76 QJ QJT3 952 952 AQJ73 62 984 A52 K74 KT8 QT75 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3D Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to diamonds. (No MI was given, as this was the actual North-South partnership agreement, which South had forgotten.) After suboptimal defence, 3NT made. Martin Sinot wrote: >My partners who open NT (weak or >strong) don't suddenly bid a suit >out of the blue when I raise a >natural NT. > >Unless either I forgot that 2NT is >a diamond transfer, or partner >forgot that it is not. > >In which case I found out in a >legal way that there is some >misunderstanding (by partner >making an impossible bid), and I >am free to bid 3NT. After the table Director consulted with the other Directors, Martin Sinot's reasoning was used to justify a ruling of no adjustment to the table score. East-West appealed. The prime mover in the East-West partnership, brilliant young Aussie champion Kieran Dyke, was the only player to attend the appeal. The table Director also attended the appeal, but the Appeals Committee saw no need to request the attendance of other players, since the facts were not in dispute. Tim West-Meads wrote: >Partner has just shown a hand that >thinks 3N will make if I have >fitting cards in diamonds and 2N >may go off if I do not. Something >like Kx, Ax, Jxxxxx, Axx perhaps. >My hand is suitable so I bid 3N. > >Had I held 2 small diamonds I'd be >obliged to pass The Appeals Committee adopted Tim West-Meads' reasoning, believing that a diamond holding of KT8 made a raise to 3NT the only logical alternative, so voted 5-0 to uphold the director's ruling. The AC then voted 3-2 that the appeal was without merit, giving Kieran Dyke the finger by fining his partnership one victory point. An unusual feature of the appeal was that the Chair of the AC also wanted to fine North-South for their "offence" of convention disruption. Fortunately another member of the AC was a grognard who could quote the WBF Code of Practice's deprecation of such punishment of convention disruption. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Thu Oct 29 08:02:52 2009 From: ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com (Ranju Bhattacharjee) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:32:52 +0530 Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: <200910281534.IAA30017@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:44:56 BST." <26704350.1256730296915.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: I am sorry scoring format is matchpoints. Ranju Bhattacharjee > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:45:29 -0700 > From: adam at irvine.com > Subject: Re: [BLML] UI > > > Thomas wrote: > > > > AG : let's begin the polling. I vote for pass. Next time, West will have > > > 1246 and 5C will go down, as will 5S. Whence passing surely is a LA. > > > > As for the poll, I think it depends on vulnerability, form of scoring, and > > on how much I expect partner to have. > > I consider both passing and bidding 5S, and I consider both to be LAs. > > The vulnerability was given in the original post: your side is > non-vul. vs. vul. > > The form of scoring was not given, and I think that's an important > piece of information. At matchpoints, bidding a phantom 5S when 5C > was going down 1 is a bad thing. At IMPs, it's not necessarily bad if > both contracts are down 1; it's relatively cheap insurance against > going -750 (or -950!) if 5C was making. > > As for Thomas' last criterion, "how much I expect partner to have" > (which probably should be subdivided into "how much I expect partner > to have in spades" and "how much I expect partner to have outside > spades"), I think one of the things everyone else on this thread, > including me, has failed to point out, is that the director and > committee may need to get some information about N-S's methods before > making a ruling. A lot of players would be reluctant to jump to 4S > over a natural opening bid with a good hand, opposite a partner who > has not yet passed. > > -- Adam > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ 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/20091029/90555fdd/attachment.html From jmmgc1 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 29 08:21:26 2009 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?Sm9z6SBNaWd1ZWw=?= ) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:21:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI References: <200910281534.IAA30017@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: I don't think 5S is a LA. I agree with all of you are saying about the vulnerability and the scoring form, etc. if the bidding is: West North East South 2C(1) 4S Pass Pass 5C A 2 Minutes Pause & then DBL Pass 5S DBL All Pass Now 5S is a clear LA. North may think that bid 5S is good decision against a sacrifice, but the bidding has gone: West North East South 2C(1) 4S 5C Pass Pass A 2 Minutes Pause & then DBL Pass 5S DBL All Pass And with this auction, I think that North has not find an aces that he has not seen in his last PASS. If he is going to bid 5S because he thinks is the fine decision, why did'nt he bid it in his las turn? I think that find the good way in a close decisions when partner has hesitated for 2 minutes is easyer than find it when partner pass in tempo. Jos? Miguel Mart?nez -------Original Message------- From: Adam Beneschan Date: 28/10/2009 16:47:07 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Thomas wrote: > > AG : let's begin the polling. I vote for pass. Next time, West will have > > 1246 and 5C will go down, as will 5S. Whence passing surely is a LA. > > As for the poll, I think it depends on vulnerability, form of scoring, and > on how much I expect partner to have. > I consider both passing and bidding 5S, and I consider both to be LAs. The vulnerability was given in the original post: your side is non-vul. vs. vul. The form of scoring was not given, and I think that's an important piece of information. At matchpoints, bidding a phantom 5S when 5C was going down 1 is a bad thing. At IMPs, it's not necessarily bad if both contracts are down 1; it's relatively cheap insurance against going -750 (or -950!) if 5C was making. As for Thomas' last criterion, "how much I expect partner to have" (which probably should be subdivided into "how much I expect partner to have in spades" and "how much I expect partner to have outside spades"), I think one of the things everyone else on this thread, including me, has failed to point out, is that the director and committee may need to get some information about N-S's methods before making a ruling. A lot of players would be reluctant to jump to 4S over a natural opening bid with a good hand, opposite a partner who has not yet passed. -- Adam _______________________________________________ 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/20091029/ab849538/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 29 10:00:16 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:00:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: <200910281534.IAA30017@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200910281534.IAA30017@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4AE959A0.9050902@ulb.ac.be> Adam Beneschan a ?crit : > Thomas wrote: > > >>> AG : let's begin the polling. I vote for pass. Next time, West will have >>> 1246 and 5C will go down, as will 5S. Whence passing surely is a LA. >>> >> As for the poll, I think it depends on vulnerability, form of scoring, and >> on how much I expect partner to have. >> I consider both passing and bidding 5S, and I consider both to be LAs. >> > > The vulnerability was given in the original post: your side is > non-vul. vs. vul. > > The form of scoring was not given, and I think that's an important > piece of information. At matchpoints, bidding a phantom 5S when 5C > was going down 1 is a bad thing. At IMPs, it's not necessarily bad if > both contracts are down 1; it's relatively cheap insurance against > going -750 (or -950!) if 5C was making. > AG : agreed, but it only means that 5S is a reasonable bid, not that it is the only possible one. And there are still those players who play that a double of 5C means murder, and would kill partner for "taking insurance" against their judgment being badly wrong. > As for Thomas' last criterion, "how much I expect partner to have" > (which probably should be subdivided into "how much I expect partner > to have in spades" and "how much I expect partner to have outside > spades"), I think one of the things everyone else on this thread, > including me, has failed to point out, is that the director and > committee may need to get some information about N-S's methods before > making a ruling. A lot of players would be reluctant to jump to 4S > over a natural opening bid with a good hand, opposite a partner who > has not yet passed. AG : yes, but that's not methods. Very few have an agreement (even implicit) that 4S limits the defensive potential of the hand. BTW, I have (we play a kind of Namyats over a natural 2 of a minor) and I still don't consider 5S automatic over partner's double. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 29 11:59:17 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:59:17 -0000 Subject: [BLML] UI References: <200910281534.IAA30017@mailhub.irvine.com> <4AE959A0.9050902@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0CE58C7F0C6941F0823E27AF4F52E506@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] UI ------------------- \x/ --------------------- > As for Thomas' last criterion, "how much I expect partner to have" > (which probably should be subdivided into "how much I expect partner > to have in spades" and "how much I expect partner to have outside > spades"), I think one of the things everyone else on this thread, > including me, has failed to point out, is that the director and > committee may need to get some information about N-S's methods before > making a ruling. A lot of players would be reluctant to jump to 4S > over a natural opening bid with a good hand, opposite a partner who > has not yet passed. AG : yes, but that's not methods. Very few have an agreement (even implicit) that 4S limits the defensive potential of the hand. BTW, I have (we play a kind of Namyats over a natural 2 of a minor) and I still don't consider 5S automatic over partner's double. .................................................................................................... +=+ As member of an appeals committee, should the OS argue before the committee that their method was such I would wish to learn that they had put this argument to the Director when he was enquiring the facts. I would not want the doubt to arise that they had thought of the argument in the interval. Alternatively their written system file migjht give acceptable evidence of it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 29 12:25:39 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:25:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: References: <200910281534.IAA30017@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4AE97BB3.7070902@ulb.ac.be> Jos? Miguel a ?crit : > Click Me! > > I don't think 5S is a LA. I agree with all of you are saying about the > vulnerability and the scoring form, etc. if the bidding is: > > West North East South > 2C(1) 4S > Pass Pass 5C A 2 Minutes Pause & then DBL > Pass 5S DBL All Pass > Now 5S is a clear LA. North may think that bid 5S is good decision > against a sacrifice, but the bidding has gone: > > West North East South > 2C(1) 4S > 5C Pass Pass A 2 Minutes Pause & then DBL > Pass 5S DBL All Pass > And with this auction, I think that North has not find an aces that he > has not seen in his last PASS. If he is going to bid 5S because he > thinks is the fine decision, why did'nt he bid it in his las turn? > AG : there might be some reason, although the hand that corresponds to such a decision will be obvious ; for example, one might be afraid to push them into 6C, making ; now, we take out the double, knowing that : 1) 6C is much less likely to make 2) even if it makes, partner's double will deter them from bidding it 3) 5S isn't expensive. In short, it might be a fine decision if and only if partner doubles. A linked case can be seen with players using Bergen raises, but who don't bid 2NT when they don't want to encourage slam in any way ; e.g. QJxx - QJxx - KJx - Qx, with which you want to commit to game but not higher, unless partner's hand is truly uncommon. They'll bid 3C with such a hand (ostensibly showing doubt about bidding game), then will raise partner's signoff to game. Even if partner hesitated. To Grattan : this might well be mentioned on their CC. My system notes read : Peut ?tre utilis? avec une main de manche, mais tr?s pauvre en contr?les, pour ?viter de partir en s?quence de chelem. Translation : [1s-3D] might be used with a game-going hand, but very poor in controls, to avoid launching a slam-oriented sequence . I hope this is strong enough evience. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 29 13:52:07 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:52:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6A50765D-7EC5-4BFF-B70E-3D46C30F6DB1@starpower.net> On Oct 28, 2009, at 6:37 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Marvin French: > >> We are told to think through the hand without playing to the first >> trick, so if we always do that opponents cannot claim deception by >> means of tempo. > > Richard Hills: > > "We" applies only to jurisdictions, such as the ACBL, which have > adopted a "mandatory pause" regulation pursuant to Law 73A2: > > "Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism > or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But > Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the > first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the > first trick." > > Marvin French: > >> If the "earliest opportunity" comes later, long thought in advance >> of a problem is both common and acceptable. > > Richard Hills: > > No and no. Long thought with a singleton at trick three in advance > of a later problem at trick five is a gross infraction of Law 73D2: > > "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of > remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as > in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a > call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct > procedure." > > Jeff Rubens: > > "(8) If an active player wishes to plan for the future, should that > be done (o) at earliest opportunity or (p) at the first juncture > that there is a problem what to play next?" > > Richard Hills: > > In ACBL-land the answer must be both (o) and (p). The answer is (o) > for trick one, doing as much planning as possible during the ACBL's > required "mandatory pause". But if on a later trick there is a need > to switch to Plan B, then the legal answer is that the planning of > Plan B must be deferred until the (p) moment of truth. > > In ABF-land, which lacks a "mandatory pause" regulation, the answer > is (p) throughout. I am not aware of an ACBL regulation mandating a pause at trick one; can anyone confirm this? What they have done is to say that declarers may be expected to take an extended pause when they first see the dummy, and therefore there are no inferences to be taken from declarer's tempo at that point in the deal. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 29 14:19:21 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:19:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 In-Reply-To: <6A50765D-7EC5-4BFF-B70E-3D46C30F6DB1@starpower.net> References: <6A50765D-7EC5-4BFF-B70E-3D46C30F6DB1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4AE99659.5040901@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> No and no. Long thought with a singleton at trick three in advance >> of a later problem at trick five is a gross infraction of Law 73D2: >> >> "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of >> remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as >> in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a >> call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct >> procedure." >> AG : I do agree that long thought with a singleton, in advance of a possible future problem, is grossly improper, but it doesn't seem to be covered by the above excerpt, which considers only the case when the intent is to decieve. Perhaps L72B1 ("could have known"), applied to L74 (which considers variations of tempo in a more general setting), is better suited. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 29 14:29:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:29:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] UI References: <200910281534.IAA30017@mailhub.irvine.com> <4AE97BB3.7070902@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] UI > . To Grattan : this might well be mentioned on their CC. My system notes read : Peut ?tre utilis? avec une main de manche, mais tr?s pauvre en contr?les, pour ?viter de partir en s?quence de chelem. Translation : [1s-3D] might be used with a game-going hand, but very poor in controls, to avoid launching a slam-oriented sequence . I hope this is strong enough evience. +=+ "C'est bien entendu" +=+ +=+ "A tale so free from every doubt, Of that there is no shadow of doubt, No probable, possible shadow of doubt, No possible doubt whatever." "No possible doubt whatever." +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 29 14:52:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:52:21 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 References: <6A50765D-7EC5-4BFF-B70E-3D46C30F6DB1@starpower.net> <4AE99659.5040901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <7EF3F24117BB4DA8863560129FDC2690@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> No and no. Long thought with a singleton at trick three in advance >> of a later problem at trick five is a gross infraction of Law 73D2: >> >> "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of >> remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as >> in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a >> call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct >> procedure." >> AG : I do agree that long thought with a singleton, in advance of a possible future problem, is grossly improper, but it doesn't seem to be covered by the above excerpt, which considers only the case when the intent is to decieve. Perhaps L72B1 ("could have known"), applied to L74 (which considers variations of tempo in a more general setting), is better suited. _______________________________________________ +=+ When I was oh so young there used to be a courtesy of remarking "I am thinking about the hand generally, not this trick". Have we recklessly used language in the laws that precludes courtesies, have times changed the custom, or is it the rude self -interest of the present breed of player that leaves the subject open to discussion? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 29 15:19:08 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:19:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 In-Reply-To: <7EF3F24117BB4DA8863560129FDC2690@Mildred> References: <6A50765D-7EC5-4BFF-B70E-3D46C30F6DB1@starpower.net> <4AE99659.5040901@ulb.ac.be> <7EF3F24117BB4DA8863560129FDC2690@Mildred> Message-ID: <00c601ca58a2$c768a270$5639e750$@nl> Hear, hear I agree to be younger than Grattan(most of us are), but the amount of postings recently that try to solve a problem that can only occur between inconsiderate louts seems to be on the increase. Hans +=+ When I was oh so young there used to be a courtesy of remarking "I am thinking about the hand generally, not this trick". Have we recklessly used language in the laws that precludes courtesies, have times changed the custom, or is it the rude self -interest of the present breed of player that leaves the subject open to discussion? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 29 16:12:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:12:50 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 References: <6A50765D-7EC5-4BFF-B70E-3D46C30F6DB1@starpower.net> <4AE99659.5040901@ulb.ac.be><7EF3F24117BB4DA8863560129FDC2690@Mildred> <00c601ca58a2$c768a270$5639e750$@nl> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 > I agree to be younger than Grattan(most of us are), < +=+ Admit to being younger or not, I doubt that your agreement or disagreement will change anything! +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Thu Oct 29 16:37:31 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:37:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 In-Reply-To: <6A50765D-7EC5-4BFF-B70E-3D46C30F6DB1@starpower.net><4AE99659.5040901@ulb.ac.be> <7EF3F24117BB4DA8863560129FDC2690@Mildred> References: <6A50765D-7EC5-4BFF-B70E-3D46C30F6DB1@starpower.net><4AE99659.5040901@ulb.ac.be> <7EF3F24117BB4DA8863560129FDC2690@Mildred> Message-ID: Here I go again. I don't see where there is room for "discussion". You have a singleton in a closed hand which you must play to this trick. So you stop to think about the rest of the hand?. Why not play the singleton in tempo AND THEN THINK TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT? Or is that asking too much? Is there any other action that AS CLEARLY gives no chance for creating a false premise? "I'm not thinking about this trick but about the rest of the hand", -- or something like that -- is a poor excuse for not playing in tempo. I don't see that as a courtesy -- if anything it leads to confusion. . 73 D is fine, but let's not forget 73F. Just for fun give me the "...demonstrable bridge reason..." for breaking tempo in this circumstance. And while you are at it explain "....could have known...." not applying along the way. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 Grattan Endicott ******************************** "We were young, we were merry, we were very, very wise, And the door stood open at our feast, When there passed us a woman with the West in her eyes, And a man with his back to the East." "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> No and no. Long thought with a singleton at trick three in advance >> of a later problem at trick five is a gross infraction of Law 73D2: >> >> "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of >> remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as >> in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a >> call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct >> procedure." >> AG : I do agree that long thought with a singleton, in advance of a possible future problem, is grossly improper, but it doesn't seem to be covered by the above excerpt, which considers only the case when the intent is to decieve. Perhaps L72B1 ("could have known"), applied to L74 (which considers variations of tempo in a more general setting), is better suited. _______________________________________________ +=+ When I was oh so young there used to be a courtesy of remarking "I am thinking about the hand generally, not this trick". Have we recklessly used language in the laws that precludes courtesies, have times changed the custom, or is it the rude self -interest of the present breed of player that leaves the subject open to discussion? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20091029/c93e2711/attachment-0001.html From adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 29 17:31:13 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:31:13 -0700 Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:59:17 -0000." <0CE58C7F0C6941F0823E27AF4F52E506@Mildred> Message-ID: <200910291619.JAA12371@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > > As for Thomas' last criterion, "how much I expect partner to have" > > (which probably should be subdivided into "how much I expect partner > > to have in spades" and "how much I expect partner to have outside > > spades"), I think one of the things everyone else on this thread, > > including me, has failed to point out, is that the director and > > committee may need to get some information about N-S's methods before > > making a ruling. A lot of players would be reluctant to jump to 4S > > over a natural opening bid with a good hand, opposite a partner who > > has not yet passed. > > AG : yes, but that's not methods. Very few have an agreement (even > implicit) that 4S limits the defensive potential of the hand. > BTW, I have (we play a kind of Namyats over a natural 2 of a minor) and > I still don't consider 5S automatic over partner's double. > .................................................................................................... > +=+ As member of an appeals committee, should the OS argue > before the committee that their method was such I would wish to > learn that they had put this argument to the Director when he > was enquiring the facts. I would not want the doubt to arise that > they had thought of the argument in the interval. Alternatively > their written system file migjht give acceptable evidence of it. Yes, but of course that assumes that the Director did inquire about their methods. In this particular case, the Director didn't even understand the laws correctly, so he probably wouldn't have asked a question like that. But assuming the Director is doing your job, then you're right that he should ask some questions that would lead to obtaining information about their methods. After reading everyone else's posts on this, I now think that passing is an LA and would be an LA even at IMPs, so the score should definitely be adjusted. However, I do still suspect there are good players who would not seriously consider passing a penalty double (at least at IMPs). Of course, that's not the right criterion to use when deciding whether to adjust. -- Adam From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 29 19:40:06 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:40:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: References: Your message of "Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:44:56 BST." <26704350.1256730296915.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <6181412.1256841606448.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> MPs, non vul vs. vul, that is close to a double or save situation. It also is unlikely that the non vul 4S overcall is strong enough to suggest bidding 5S to make. And 5C doubled down two is a top. I think absent further discussion overcaller's double of 5C here recommends playing 5C doubled, and with advancer's collection of used tram tickets I see no reason to assume 5S (or even 4S) will make. Thus I would pass 5CX. Thomas Ranju Bhattacharjee wrote: > I am sorry scoring format is matchpoints. > > > > Ranju Bhattacharjee > > > To: blml at rtflb.org > > Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:45:29 -0700 > > From: adam at irvine.com > > Subject: Re: [BLML] UI > > > > > > Thomas wrote: > > > > > > AG : let's begin the polling. I vote for pass. Next time, West will have > > > > 1246 and 5C will go down, as will 5S. Whence passing surely is a LA. > > > > > > As for the poll, I think it depends on vulnerability, form of scoring, and > > > on how much I expect partner to have. > > > I consider both passing and bidding 5S, and I consider both to be LAs. > > > > The vulnerability was given in the original post: your side is > > non-vul. vs. vul. > > > > The form of scoring was not given, and I think that's an important > > piece of information. At matchpoints, bidding a phantom 5S when 5C > > was going down 1 is a bad thing. At IMPs, it's not necessarily bad if > > both contracts are down 1; it's relatively cheap insurance against > > going -750 (or -950!) if 5C was making. > > > > As for Thomas' last criterion, "how much I expect partner to have" > > (which probably should be subdivided into "how much I expect partner > > to have in spades" and "how much I expect partner to have outside > > spades"), I think one of the things everyone else on this thread, > > including me, has failed to point out, is that the director and > > committee may need to get some information about N-S's methods before > > making a ruling. A lot of players would be reluctant to jump to 4S > > over a natural opening bid with a good hand, opposite a partner who > > has not yet passed. 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 Oct 29 21:47:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:47:37 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 References: <6A50765D-7EC5-4BFF-B70E-3D46C30F6DB1@starpower.net><4AE99659.5040901@ulb.ac.be><7EF3F24117BB4DA8863560129FDC2690@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <66B483FF81924804B41ECD682421C45A@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] UI > > Grattan wrote: > >> > As for Thomas' last criterion, "how much I expect partner to have" >> > (which probably should be subdivided into "how much I expect partner >> > to have in spades" and "how much I expect partner to have outside >> > spades"), I think one of the things everyone else on this thread, >> > including me, has failed to point out, is that the director and >> > committee may need to get some information about N-S's methods before >> > making a ruling. A lot of players would be reluctant to jump to 4S >> > over a natural opening bid with a good hand, opposite a partner who >> > has not yet passed. >> >> AG : yes, but that's not methods. Very few have an agreement (even >> implicit) that 4S limits the defensive potential of the hand. >> BTW, I have (we play a kind of Namyats over a natural 2 of a minor) and >> I still don't consider 5S automatic over partner's double. >> .................................................................................................... >> +=+ As member of an appeals committee, should the OS argue >> before the committee that their method was such I would wish to >> learn that they had put this argument to the Director when he >> was enquiring the facts. I would not want the doubt to arise that >> they had thought of the argument in the interval. Alternatively >> their written system file migjht give acceptable evidence of it. > > Yes, but of course that assumes that the Director did inquire (***) > about their methods. In this particular case, the Director didn't even > understand the laws correctly, so he probably wouldn't have asked a > question like that. But assuming the Director is doing your job, then > you're right that he should ask some questions that would lead to > obtaining information about their methods. > > After reading everyone else's posts on this, I now think that passing > is an LA and would be an LA even at IMPs, so the score should > definitely be adjusted. However, I do still suspect there are good > players who would not seriously consider passing a penalty double (at > least at IMPs). Of course, that's not the right criterion to use when > deciding whether to adjust. > +=+ (***) In my opinion a strongly believing pair would surely thrust the information upon the Director regardless of whether he was asking. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 29 22:43:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:43:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder: >>Here I go again. >> >>I don't see where there is room for "discussion". You have a >>singleton in a closed hand which you must play to this trick. >>So you stop to think about the rest of the hand?. Why not >>play the singleton in tempo AND THEN THINK TO YOUR HEART'S >>CONTENT? Or is that asking too much? Is there any other >>action that AS CLEARLY gives no chance for creating a false >>premise? "I'm not thinking about this trick but about the rest >>of the hand", -- or something like that -- is a poor excuse >>for not playing in tempo. I don't see that as a courtesy -- >>if anything it leads to confusion. 73 D is fine, but let's >>not forget 73F. >> >>Just for fun give me the "...demonstrable bridge reason..." >>for breaking tempo in this circumstance. And while you are at >>it explain "....could have known...." not applying along the >>way. >> >>Kojak Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I still think whether or no there is a singleton that the >question calls for an answer. "Have we recklessly used >language in the laws that precludes courtesies, have times >changed the custom, or is it the rude self-interest of the >present breed of player that leaves the subject open to >discussion?" +=+ Lord Kitchener, 1914 message to British soldiers in France: "In this new experience you may find temptations in both wine and women. You must entirely resist both temptations, and, while treating all women with perfect courtesy, you should avoid any intimacy. Do your duty bravely. Fear God. Honour the King." Richard Hills: "I am not thinking about my current call, I am thinking about the future direction of the auction," is not a permissible courteous statement but instead either: (a) a lie, infracting Law 73D2 and Law 73E, or (b) the truth, infracting Law 73A1 and Law 73B1. It does, however, seem permissible for declarer (and declarer only) to make these truthful courteous statements: "I am delaying my play of a singleton on this current trick three because I foresee a difficult problem in guessing whether to play dummy's King or Jack at trick five. So my LHO should smoothly play in tempo when I lead towards dummy at trick five." if it were not for the fact that Law 72A now requires declarer to play "to obtain a higher score". So yes, Kojak is unquestionably** correct, declarer should play her trick three singleton in tempo and only then should declarer start thinking about her forthcoming trick five guess. **Of course, blml specialises in questioning correct statements. 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 Oct 29 22:55:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:55:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>I agree to be younger than Grattan (most of us are), >+=+ Admit to being younger or not, I doubt that your >agreement or disagreement will change anything! +=+ By a pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding, created by a Law 40C1 deviation (i.e. me being a deviant), I am older than Grattan, since I am as old as the Hills. 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 Oct 30 00:23:01 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:23:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Silver Blaze [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Sherlock Holmes: "...we are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture, and hypothesis. The difficulty is to detach the framework of fact - of absolute undeniable fact - from the embellishments of theorists and reporters." rec.games.bridge, August 2005: >>>S but not W has just called. N puts a pass card instead of the alert >>>card on the table. After about 5 seconds W calls the director. At >>>this moment N recognizes the mistake. David Stevenson, August 2005: >>It is our interpretation of Law 25A. Who is "our"? Good question. I >>think the EBU and the EBL. >> >>Yes, but it takes a totally misguided pedant [any BLML members >>present?] to suggest that does not mean you can change your intended >>alert card for your accidental pass card. Steve Willner, August 2005 >As David knows, I can't resist an invitation like that. :-) > >I agree that if the existing L25A applies, the inadvertent pass card >can be withdrawn and the intended alert substituted, but I don't see >any rule to allow it. L25A itself only applies to calls, not to >alerts. > >Comments? Updated 2007 version of Law 25A1: "Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law." Richard Hills: Roman numerals were notoriously difficult to use. Arabic numerals were rapidly adopted in medieval Europe due to the innovation of a null symbol, zero. As an ultra super totally misguided pedant, I would argue that Law 25A1 should be embellished by my theory that a "second (intended)" null "call stands", which would Lawfully permit an unintended Pass card to be replaced by an intended Alert card. 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 Oct 30 01:37:24 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:37:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] UI [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6181412.1256841606448.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Cecil Day-Lewis (1904-1972): It is the logic of our times, No subject for immortal verse -- That we who lived by honest dreams Defend the bad against the worse. Thomas Dehn: >MPs, non vul vs. vul, >that is close to a double or save situation. >It also is unlikely that the non vul 4S overcall >is strong enough to suggest bidding 5S to make. >And 5C doubled down two is a top. > >I think absent further discussion overcaller's >double of 5C here recommends playing 5C doubled, >and with advancer's collection of used tram tickets >I see no reason to assume 5S (or even 4S) >will make. >Thus I would pass 5CX. Richard Hills: Excellent logic, but logic does not a "logical alternative" make. There is a large class of carrot-chewing players who will always automatically pass the opponents' undoubled game (when the logical percentage action is to take the save), but who will always automatically later remove partner's penalty double (when now the logical percentage action is to trust partner). So if North is such a carrot-chewing player, both of North's actions -- passing 5C and removing 5Cx to 5S -- were North's only "logical alternative" actions, thus for that North the table score should stand. 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 Oct 30 03:21:03 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:21:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40 rights - a shrewdness of apes In-Reply-To: <4AE859C8.1010507@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE859C8.1010507@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AEA4D8F.1000702@nhcc.net> [explaining lebensohl after 1NT-2H] > From: Robert Frick > Instead, try "His 2NT bid tells me to bid 3C." Why would you say that? It does not explain the bid, and (IMHO) opponents are not entitled to know it. > "He probably has a weak hand with a long suit and this is his way of > trying to stop in 3C or 3D." That's fine, though "weak" could be misleading. I'd prefer "no game interest." > Another pause. "He could have a strong hand," > quick pause, "and I will know that from the future bidding." What about invitational with spades? And don't the strong hands all have in common a heart stopper? Opponents are entitled to know that if so. Despite my quibbles, this is the right sort of explanation to give. > Reminds me of directors who think they should read their ruling from > the lawbook. Which is, of course, recommended practice everywhere except the ACBL (and except for LOOT, which is too complex). From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 30 03:38:56 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:38:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 In-Reply-To: <4AE890D0.5070406@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE890D0.5070406@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AEA51C0.4050302@nhcc.net> > From: Marvin L French (quoting Jeff Rubens in tBW) > (4) Upon the occurrence of an irregularity that engenders a > disproportionately harsh adjustment, should the opponents of the > infractor (g) enforce the rules, or (h) ignore the infraction? First of all, if a rectification (or "adjustment") is prescribed in TFLB, by definition it cannot be "disproportionately harsh." How can a player who asks that the rules be enforced be subject to criticism? As Marv wrote, it's legal to ignore an infraction that nobody has called attention to, but it seems to me ethically dubious unless one's own side has contributed to the infraction or the infraction is related to a disability or other extenuating circumstance. Of course actions that would be "use of UI" if perpetrated by experienced players are highly unlikely to be infractions if perpetrated by beginners. There are probably other examples in this vein. It's fine to ignore possible irregularities if no infraction is likely to have occurred. Hmmm... here's a related question that actually came up Sunday last. An opponent "used UI" (in our view), and we reported the facts to the Director. He was hopelessly incompetent and didn't even understand the problem. Looking around the room, it seemed unlikely to us that a competent AC could be formed (though we could easily have been wrong about that), and anyway we didn't want to be late getting home. Were we ethically obliged to appeal? From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 30 03:52:06 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:52:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 5 In-Reply-To: <4AE890ED.6030605@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE890ED.6030605@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AEA54D6.6040004@nhcc.net> > From: Marvin L French > Nevertheless, a situation could arise in which calling the TD about > UI committed by one's own side is advisable. That is at end of play > when you are sure your side has not committed an infraction but the > opponents are obviously unhappy, raising eyebrows and such. Rather > than risk damage to your reputation, get the TD involved. 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.) > If an adjustment is just a possibility, not obvious, then saying > nothing is well within the spirit of the game. I agree as long as the opponents are not beginners or at some other disadvantage (perhaps visitors at the local club). From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 30 04:01:17 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:01:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 5 In-Reply-To: <4AE9EE09.6060908@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AE9EE09.6060908@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AEA56FD.8000500@nhcc.net> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > And note that it is only one's established revokes which Law 72B2 > gives a choice about revealing. It is compulsory to reveal a Law 62A > non-established revoke (and, if a defender, suffer the consequences of > a penalty card rectification). Here's an interesting question based on a real case (though I've changed the actual facts because the ruling on the real facts is easy). 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. Is your ruling based on: 1. one-trick revoke penalty (L64C is irrelevant -- EW gained no tricks from the revoke), or 2. what would have happened if East had immediately noticed his revoke and corrected it? (Declarer would have required a lead in the penalty- card suit, leaving most of West's winners uncashed, and won the rest of the tricks.) Please cite relevant Laws. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Oct 30 03:37:12 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:37:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 5 In-Reply-To: <4AEA56FD.8000500@nhcc.net> References: <4AE9EE09.6060908@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AEA56FD.8000500@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <9A99E247FE5E4BF7B00F68E0410504F2@erdos> "Steve Willner" writes: > Here's an interesting question based on a real case (though I've changed > the actual facts because the ruling on the real facts is easy). > > 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. Is your ruling > based on: > 1. one-trick revoke penalty (L64C is irrelevant -- EW gained no tricks > from the revoke), or > 2. what would have happened if East had immediately noticed his revoke > and corrected it? (Declarer would have required a lead in the penalty- > card suit, leaving most of West's winners uncashed, and won the rest of > the tricks.) L62B: A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. If East was aware of the revoke and chose not to correct it (not likely), then L12A1 allows the TD to award South all the rest of the tricks, as East committed an infraction which caused his side to lose fewer tricks and which does not have a specific penalty in the Laws. If East was not aware of the revoke until South mentioned it at the end of the hand (probably the case), then his failure to correct the revoke was not an infraction, so the penalty is just one trick. 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. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 30 04:32:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:32:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AEA51C0.4050302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >Hmmm... here's a related question that actually came up Sunday last. >An opponent "used UI" (in our view), and we reported the facts to the >Director. He was hopelessly incompetent and didn't even understand >the problem. Looking around the room, it seemed unlikely to us that a >competent AC could be formed (though we could easily have been wrong >about that), and anyway we didn't want to be late getting home. Were >we ethically obliged to appeal? Richard Hills: If the Director was so hopelessly incompetent that the Director failed to make a ruling, then it would have been unLawful for Steve to appeal against that non-existent ruling. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th September 2009: "The committee considered a situation where there had been a request for a ruling only just within the time limit (Law 92B). This had created a difficulty for the Director. The committee was of the view that the Director should provide a ruling before bringing it to the appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific and take priority over any attempt to take the matter directly to the appeals committee." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 30 04:41:55 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:41:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4AEA51C0.4050302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0910292041xb00f2a0w1744c73bd149e291@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM, wrote: > > If the Director was so hopelessly incompetent that the Director failed > to make a ruling, then it would have been unLawful for Steve to appeal > against that non-existent ruling. > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th September 2009: > > "The committee considered a situation where there had been a request > for a ruling only just within the time limit (Law 92B). This had > created a difficulty for the Director. The committee was of the view > that the Director should provide a ruling before bringing it to the > appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific and take priority over > any attempt to take the matter directly to the appeals committee." > I don't see any functional difference between a director refusing to make a ruling and a director ruling "no damage, no adjustment." If there really was the distinction Richard makes here, then a director not wanting to be overturned could choose to say "I am not making a ruling" whenever he wished to rule "no damage, no adjustment." According to Richard, if I read him correctly, such pronouncements could never be overturned. That cannot be what TPTB had in mind, can it? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 30 05:31:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:31:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0910292041xb00f2a0w1744c73bd149e291@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th September 2009: "The committee considered a situation where there had been a request for a ruling only just within the time limit (Law 92B). This had created a difficulty for the Director. The committee was of the view that the Director should provide a ruling before bringing it to the appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific and take priority over any attempt to take the matter directly to the appeals committee." Jerry Fusselman: >I don't see any functional difference between a director refusing to >make a ruling and a director ruling "no damage, no adjustment." If >there really was the distinction Richard makes here, then a director >not wanting to be overturned could choose to say "I am not making a >ruling" whenever he wished to rule "no damage, no adjustment." Law 84 - Rulings on Agreed Facts (prologue): "When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed, he rules as follows:" Law 85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts (prologue): "When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:" Jerry Fusselman: >According to Richard, if I read him correctly, such pronouncements >could never be overturned. That cannot be what TPTB had in mind, >can it? Richard Hills: If a Director chooses not to make a ruling when requested to do so, then that Director has misinterpreted the meaning of the Lawbook, a Law 82C Director's Error, since the Law 84 and Law 85 prologues deny the Director such discretionary power. Furthermore, an Appeals Committee cannot force the Director to make a ruling (which ruling can then be reviewed by the Appeals Committee) by the Appeals Committee over-riding the Director's misinterpretation of Laws 84 and 85, since Law 93B3 states: "...the committee may not over-rule the Director in charge on a point of law...". Ultimately, the only solution for an incompetent Director is for the Cair Paravel Tournament Organizer to replace Shift the Ape with a different Director for their next event, and the Narnian Regulating Authority to replace Shift's non-ruling with a Law 93C1 ruling: "Regulating Authorities may establish procedures for further appeals after the foregoing procedures have been exhausted. Any such further appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 30 10:13:02 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:13:02 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 References: <4AE890D0.5070406@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AEA51C0.4050302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <415C149BFCB2441884550824DC582CCA@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 > Were we ethically obliged to appeal? > +=+ I think the use of 'may' in Law 92A answers this. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 30 11:01:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:01:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4AEA51C0.4050302@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0910292041xb00f2a0w1744c73bd149e291@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8F18C8BA658949BB89874BD9667C3749@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 3:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Jeff Rubens Question 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM, wrote: >> >> If the Director was so hopelessly incompetent that the Director failed >> to make a ruling, then it would have been unLawful for Steve to appeal >> against that non-existent ruling. >> >> WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th September 2009: >> >> "The committee considered a situation where there had been a request >> for a ruling only just within the time limit (Law 92B). This had >> created a difficulty for the Director. The committee was of the view >> that the Director should provide a ruling before bringing it to the >> appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific and take priority over >> any attempt to take the matter directly to the appeals committee." >> > > I don't see any functional difference between a director refusing to > make a ruling and a director ruling "no damage, no adjustment." If > there really was the distinction Richard makes here, then a director > not wanting to be overturned could choose to say "I am not making a > ruling" whenever he wished to rule "no damage, no adjustment." > According to Richard, if I read him correctly, such pronouncements > could never be overturned. That cannot be what TPTB had in mind, can > it? > +=+ 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 ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Oct 30 17:39:08 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:39:08 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens questions in the November Bridge World Message-ID: I had planned to summarize BLML's answers for Jeff, but that is impossible and he doesn't want that anyway. I will give him my own replies without quoting others, but the intelligent replies of BLMLers will of course influence my answers. Jeff encourages all of you to write directly to him: jeff at bridgeworld.com if you want him to know your opinion. I felt like telling him that if he wants BLML opinions, subscribe. It's a pity he or an office associate doesn't join BLML. Not to mention the ACBLLC, most of whom are not subscribers, not even the Chairman. Congrats to Vice Chairman Adam Wildavsky for being an involved subscriber. Maybe he will influence others on the LC to join us, if only as lurkers. I encouraged the late former Co-Chairman Ralph Cohen to subscribe, but he said he didn't want his in-box cluttered with excessive mail. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Oct 30 17:50:08 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:50:08 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills: > Marvin French: > >>>...As an example, no one thinks it in the spirit of the game to >>>call >>>attention to a revoke by one's side. > > Eric Landau: > >>Not true IME. I've seen it happen on several occasions. 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. > > Richard Hills: > > Uniquely in the Lawbook is the phrase "no obligation to" (i.e. > either > of the two choices is proper) in Law 72B2: Lots of proper things are not in the spirit of the game. L20F3 says it is proper for me to question every opposing call in a long unAlerted auction provided UI is not conveyed, but that is not in the spirit of the game. Or does "a single call" in 20F3 mean you can question only one call? :-)) Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 31 11:15:59 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:15:59 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Jeff Rubens question 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> Richard Hills: >> >> Uniquely in the Lawbook is the phrase "no obligation to" (i.e. >> either >> of the two choices is proper) in Law 72B2: > > Lots of proper things are not in the spirit of the game. L20F3 says > it is proper for me to question every opposing call in a long > unAlerted auction provided UI is not conveyed, but that is not in > the spirit of the game. > +=+ There are obligations in Laws 20F (re mistaken explanation), 62A, and 79A2. Apart from these it is not a breach of the moral and ethical standards of the game if a side does not call attention to its own infraction. +=+ > Or does "a single call" in 20F3 mean you can question only > one call? :-)) > +=+ I am not sure how this remark fits in. You can ask "tell me about the 3D bid, please" at the risk of creating UI for partner. But maybe the remark is not intended seriously? ~ G ~ +=+