From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 1 00:52:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:52:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <29998016.1251740049206.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Graham Greene (1904-1991), English novelist: "There is a splinter of ice in the heart of a writer." >>>Matchpoint pairs >>>Dlr: East >>>Vul: Both >>> >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- --- Pass 1D >>>Pass 3H (1) X 4C >>>4H X (2) Pass ? >>> >>>(1) Alerted and correctly explained as game-forcing with diamond >>>support and a singleton or void in hearts >>> >>>(2) Penalty double >>> >>>You, South, hold: >>> >>>AT9 >>>--- >>>A7643 >>>KJ865 >>> >>>What call do you make? Robert Frick: >>Pass >>>What other calls do you consider making? Robert Frick: >>To pass or not to pass, that is the question. >> >>It depends on how likely partner is to remember the convention. Only >>an expert playing with an expert doubles 3H with a singleton. Thomas Dehn: >I think you misread the auction. You opened 1D. >Partner responded with a 3H splinter. Richard Hills: No, in context I think that Bob typoed, intending to write, "an expert doubles 4H with a singleton". And in context it is highly peculiar that both East and West passed on the first round of the auction when they theoretically hold 12 or 13 hearts between them. So in context it seems that North has perpetrated an over-sufficient bid (insufficient bids are so last year), pulling 3H instead of 1H out of the bidding box, and also lacking awareness of her Law 25A rights. However... While Bob's pass of 4Hx is legal in the ACBL under 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). in England Bob's pass would be an illegal fielding of a Red Misbid, which makes one wonder whether the EBU Red Misbid regulation is legal. "...that players entering events submit themselves to the published regulations, and should be expected to comply with them even though there may be doubt as to their legality" --EBU L&EC discussion point 2004, republished on blml 10 December 2008 Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From henk at ripe.net Tue Sep 1 01:01:01 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:01:01 +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 jimfox00 at cox.net Tue Sep 1 01:23:39 2009 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:23:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> References: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> Message-ID: I am an occasional blml'er not referred to. Fluxman -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: 08/31/2009 3:52 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] If you are the occasional blml'er referred to, please believe I concur with Richard that this should not happen. If you are not, then please don't call this time-wasting. Blml takes up so much time and space that this is hardly wasting time (incrementally speaking). Besides, your post has made me waste more time than Richards message. Herman. Jim Fox wrote: > Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. > > Fluxman > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sent: 08/30/2009 7:07 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > R.J.B. Hills > > Unfortunately the phenomenon of "cyber-stalking" has reached > blml. I have again received a derogatory private email from an > occasional blmler: > > "This misquote of Eric [Landau] I find despicable. Are you > trying to be funny? I wish you would cut it out." > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jimfox00 at cox.net Tue Sep 1 01:24:20 2009 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:24:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9B8A2A.3000909@aol.com> References: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> <4A9B8A2A.3000909@aol.com> Message-ID: I feel Richard was imposing his standards on the rest of the group. Fluxman -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: 08/31/2009 4:31 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Well said Herman! If you/anyone are/is offended or dislike something Richard wrote, then delete it, don't read it, whatever. Do not impose your standards of humour or humourlessness on us. I agree fully with Herman. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > If you are the occasional blml'er referred to, please believe I concur > with Richard that this should not happen. > If you are not, then please don't call this time-wasting. Blml takes up > so much time and space that this is hardly wasting time (incrementally > speaking). > Besides, your post has made me waste more time than Richards message. > Herman. > > Jim Fox wrote: >> Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. >> >> Fluxman >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Sent: 08/30/2009 7:07 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> R.J.B. Hills >> >> Unfortunately the phenomenon of "cyber-stalking" has reached >> blml. I have again received a derogatory private email from an >> occasional blmler: >> >> "This misquote of Eric [Landau] I find despicable. Are you >> trying to be funny? I wish you would cut it out." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 1 02:16:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:16:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >I feel Richard was imposing his standards on the rest of the group. > >Fluxman Richard Hills: Standard set by Law 74A2 (and yes, I have often erred in not living up to that standard in my own blml posts): "A blmler should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another blmler or might interfere with the enjoyment of the posts." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills Standard set by blml Moderator, Henk Uijterwaal, 6th February 2009: >>Hi all, >> >>Speaking as moderator of the list... [snip] >>I think we have gone past discussing bridge laws (for which the >>list is intended) and into the area of personal attacks (for >>which the list is NOT intended). [snip] >>So, I suggest the following: >> >> = We stop discussing the specific rulings that led to this point. >> >> = We all accept that we have our differences of opinion. >> >> = Everybody who feels like calling somebody else an asshole, >> liar, or whatever, takes a 1 week cool down period and DOES NOT >> POST during this week. >> >>Henk -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Sep 1 02:24:42 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:24:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> <4A9B8A2A.3000909@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A9C69CA.5010107@aol.com> I don't quite understand this. Richard attempts to be humorous. You don't think he succeeds. (I do.) So anyone trying to be humorous is imposing his standards on the rest of the group? In all cases or only where you don't understand the humour? I see only two solutions. Either no one attempts to be humorous or he first sends his attempt to you to see if you approve. Is this what you mean when accusing Richard of imposing his standards on us? As far as I can judge many blmlers feel Richard should be allowed his attempts at humour whether they appreciate them or not. Herman has often engaged in heated controversies with Richard so cannot be accused of being especially partial but he seems to feel that Richard should not be censored. And I often disagree with Herman, but not in this case. Ciao, JE Jim Fox schrieb: > I feel Richard was imposing his standards on the rest of the group. > > Fluxman > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Jeff Easterson > Sent: 08/31/2009 4:31 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Well said Herman! If you/anyone are/is offended or dislike something > Richard wrote, then delete it, don't read it, whatever. Do not impose > your standards of humour or humourlessness on us. I agree fully with > Herman. JE > > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> If you are the occasional blml'er referred to, please believe I concur >> with Richard that this should not happen. >> If you are not, then please don't call this time-wasting. Blml takes up >> so much time and space that this is hardly wasting time (incrementally >> speaking). >> Besides, your post has made me waste more time than Richards message. >> Herman. >> >> Jim Fox wrote: >>> Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. >>> >>> Fluxman >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au >>> Sent: 08/30/2009 7:07 PM >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> R.J.B. Hills >>> >>> Unfortunately the phenomenon of "cyber-stalking" has reached >>> blml. I have again received a derogatory private email from an >>> occasional blmler: >>> >>> "This misquote of Eric [Landau] I find despicable. Are you >>> trying to be funny? I wish you would cut it out." >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 1 02:57:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 01:57:01 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <7509144.1251766621664.JavaMail.root@ps30> >Jim Fox schrieb: >> I feel Richard was imposing his standards on the rest of the group. >> +=+ I think this could be said oftentimes of many of us. So what: This is a cut and thrust forum and provided civil language is used all the better for it. Grattan +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From jimfox00 at cox.net Tue Sep 1 05:13:24 2009 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:13:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9C69CA.5010107@aol.com> References: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> <4A9B8A2A.3000909@aol.com> <4A9C69CA.5010107@aol.com> Message-ID: The question is why the "private" email must not stay private; why must it be foisted on the group with no purpose that I can see constructive to "bridge laws". Fluxman -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: 08/31/2009 8:25 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I don't quite understand this. Richard attempts to be humorous. You don't think he succeeds. (I do.) So anyone trying to be humorous is imposing his standards on the rest of the group? In all cases or only where you don't understand the humour? I see only two solutions. Either no one attempts to be humorous or he first sends his attempt to you to see if you approve. Is this what you mean when accusing Richard of imposing his standards on us? As far as I can judge many blmlers feel Richard should be allowed his attempts at humour whether they appreciate them or not. Herman has often engaged in heated controversies with Richard so cannot be accused of being especially partial but he seems to feel that Richard should not be censored. And I often disagree with Herman, but not in this case. Ciao, JE Jim Fox schrieb: > I feel Richard was imposing his standards on the rest of the group. > > Fluxman > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Jeff Easterson > Sent: 08/31/2009 4:31 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Well said Herman! If you/anyone are/is offended or dislike something > Richard wrote, then delete it, don't read it, whatever. Do not impose > your standards of humour or humourlessness on us. I agree fully with > Herman. JE > > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> If you are the occasional blml'er referred to, please believe I concur >> with Richard that this should not happen. >> If you are not, then please don't call this time-wasting. Blml takes up >> so much time and space that this is hardly wasting time (incrementally >> speaking). >> Besides, your post has made me waste more time than Richards message. >> Herman. >> >> Jim Fox wrote: >>> Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. >>> >>> Fluxman >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au >>> Sent: 08/30/2009 7:07 PM >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> R.J.B. Hills >>> >>> Unfortunately the phenomenon of "cyber-stalking" has reached >>> blml. I have again received a derogatory private email from an >>> occasional blmler: >>> >>> "This misquote of Eric [Landau] I find despicable. Are you >>> trying to be funny? I wish you would cut it out." >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 1 05:29:21 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:29:21 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> <4A9B8A2A.3000909@aol.com><4A9C69CA.5010107@aol.com> Message-ID: From: "Jim Fox" > The question is why the "private" email must not stay private; why > must it > be foisted on the group with no purpose that I can see > constructive to > "bridge laws". And why must this top-posted non-constructive comment be foisted on BLML? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:28:45 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:28:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9B8A2A.3000909@aol.com> References: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> <4A9B8A2A.3000909@aol.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0908312128y6b72cac9o27e232345f66c590@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Well said Herman! ?If you/anyone are/is offended or dislike something > Richard wrote, then delete it, don't read it, whatever. Do not impose > your standards of humour or humourlessness on us. ?I agree fully with > Herman. JE It is so funny when a BLMLer chides someone for doing what he cannot resist doing himself. Let me see if I have Jeff's position correct: 1. Richard can misquote all he wants, provided some of us think he is being funny. 2. Mr. X must not censure Richard for intentional misquoting. If he disliked it, he should have deleted it. 3. Richard's censure of Mr. X good, because it was a censure of a censure. Why doesn't Jeff suggest Richard just delete the message instead of crying to BLML? 4. Jim's censure of Richard's censure of Mr. X is bad. Jeff says that if Jim disliked it, he should have deleted it. 5. Jeff's censure of Jim's censure is good. For some reason, Jeff's mere deletion of the post is inadequate. Jeff won't follow his own advice. What principle would Jeff have us use to choose which censures are right and good, and which should have remained silent? Is it the even-powered censures that are good and the odd-powered that are bad? I think Jeff's only principle could be that if he agrees with a position, it should be posted, and if he disagrees, it should be kept to one's self. Instead, perhaps Jeff should follow his own advice. "If you/anyone are/is offended or dislike something [someone] wrote, then delete it, don't read it, whatever. Do not impose your standards [...] on us." Jeff, do you see your inconsistency? Best regards, Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:29:06 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:29:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> <4A9B8A2A.3000909@aol.com> <4A9C69CA.5010107@aol.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0908312129w130bcff9j73b99efc090d2c28@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > And why must this top-posted non-constructive comment be foisted on > BLML? > Oh my, how horrible, a top posting! How can we tolerate it? It's okay for a regular to intentionally misquote someone, but a rare contributor's top posting must not be tolerated! Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 1 08:51:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:51:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] BLML archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965), Presidential candidate 1952 and 1956: "He who slings mud generally loses ground." J?rgen Rennenkampff, 2nd October 2002: [snip] >The deeper point is this: Once you have a profusion of regulations >that are not based on easily understood principles, that define fair >play in a way often at odds with common perceptions, and when there >is an enforcer present at all times, then you will find people >ignoring the common proprieties and begin lawyering. > >If you are interested in the survival of this dying game make the >rules as simple as possible - they will still be complicated - and >keep the TD out of the game as much as possible. Adlai Stevenson, 13th December 1952: "A funny thing happened to me on the way to the White House." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 1 09:51:57 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:51:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A9CD29D.1060408@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > While Bob's pass of 4Hx is legal in the ACBL under 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). > > in England Bob's pass would be an illegal fielding of a Red Misbid, > which makes one wonder whether the EBU Red Misbid regulation is legal. > Is there any doubt that that particular regulation is illegal? How can the fielding of a psyche ever be illegal? But I don't think it is the fielding which the EBU considers illegal, but rather the psyche, when fielded. But that too is illegal, IMO. The fielding would be evidence of undisclosed agreements, I'm OK with that, but there cannot be two types of undisclosed agreements. One type is the forgotten alert, the forgotten system. That is routinely dealt with with an adjusted score, based on what would have happened if the information had correctly reached the opponents. What the English are doing is creating a separate kind of MI, which is dealt with scrapping the board and writing down 60%-0%. That, IMO, makes this an illegal regulation. Herman. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Sep 1 11:51:14 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:51:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Monkeywrenching [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0908312128y6b72cac9o27e232345f66c590@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A97A670.8000505@ulb.ac.be> <4A9B8123.9040203@skynet.be> <4A9B8A2A.3000909@aol.com> <2b1e598b0908312128y6b72cac9o27e232345f66c590@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A9CEE92.7050501@aol.com> Hola Jerry! To your final question: no I don't. To the individual points see below. Jerry Fusselman schrieb: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Well said Herman! If you/anyone are/is offended or dislike something >> Richard wrote, then delete it, don't read it, whatever. Do not impose >> your standards of humour or humourlessness on us. I agree fully with >> Herman. JE > > It is so funny when a BLMLer chides someone for doing what he cannot > resist doing himself. Let me see if I have Jeff's position correct: > > 1. Richard can misquote all he wants, provided some of us think he is > being funny. No, He should not misquote. He agrees with that as do all of us. (I sent him an email on this point.) The question is if he did misquote. Secondary question: if Eric felt he was misquoted why didn't he react? I think he is quite capable of defending himself without help of others. As far as I know Eric has not reacted to Richard's posting. Is it possible he doesn't feel he was misquoted or that it is unimportant? I am surprised that others are writing before Eric does. > > 2. Mr. X must not censure Richard for intentional misquoting. If he > disliked it, he should have deleted it. I understood Mr X's email as essentially censuring Richard for trying to be funny. We all agree that misquoting, if done, is not to be accepted. If anyone is annoyed by Richard's humour (or attempts at humour) he needn't read it, can delete it. That was what I intended to say. Perhaps it was unclear. We agree about misquoting. > > 3. Richard's censure of Mr. X good, because it was a censure of a > censure. Why doesn't Jeff suggest Richard just delete the message > instead of crying to BLML? Did Richard censure Mr. X? I didn't understand Richard's posting in this sense. > > 4. Jim's censure of Richard's censure of Mr. X is bad. Jeff says > that if Jim disliked it, he should have deleted it. I said if anyone finds someone's emails distasteful he shouldn't read them, can delete them. At least that is what I meant to say. I occasionally delete an email before reading it to the end if I find it boring, repetitive irrelevant, whatever. Anyone can do this. > > 5. Jeff's censure of Jim's censure is good. For some reason, Jeff's > mere deletion of the post is inadequate. Jeff won't follow his own > advice. Not sure I understand this. I feel that no one has the right to "censure" other blmlers for matters of taste (if humour is successful). As I recall it was a matter of "imposing (ones own) standards". If Richard tries to be humorous that is not, as I understand it, an attempt to impose his standards. If someone objects to his attempt at humour and demands he not try to be humorous it seems to me that is imposing of standards (in my opinion). A few examples. If someone signs his emails "fluxman" or "JE" that is not imposing of standards. If someone else objects to this it is. > > What principle would Jeff have us use to choose which censures are > right and good, and which should have remained silent? Is it the > even-powered censures that are good and the odd-powered that are bad? No censures seem to me to be good other than the principles Henk earlier noted. > > I think Jeff's only principle could be that if he agrees with a > position, it should be posted, and if he disagrees, it should be kept > to one's self. Instead, perhaps Jeff should follow his own advice. > "If you/anyone are/is offended or dislike something [someone] wrote, > then delete it, don't read it, whatever. Do not impose your standards > [...] on us." My principle is that anyone can post what he wants so long as it doesn't violate the principles of blml as set down by Henk. If you dislike a posting you are free to criticise it. I don't think you should say such postings should not be posted in the future. But remember I was concentrating on humour/failed humour which seemed to me to be what Mr X was objecting to. Not on possible misquotes. We are in agreement on misquotes. I have the impression from other postings on this thread that this is the general opinion of blmlers. Ciao, JE > > Jeff, do you see your inconsistency? > > Best regards, > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 1 13:08:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 12:08:06 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <15842608.1251803286760.JavaMail.root@ps32.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: Hermandw at skynet.be >Date: 01/09/2009 8:51 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> While Bob's pass of 4Hx is legal in the ACBL under 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). >> >> in England Bob's pass would be an illegal fielding of a Red Misbid, >> which makes one wonder whether the EBU Red Misbid regulation is legal. >> > >Is there any doubt that that particular regulation is illegal? >How can the fielding of a psyche ever be illegal? >But I don't think it is the fielding which the EBU considers illegal, >but rather the psyche, when fielded. >But that too is illegal, IMO. >The fielding would be evidence of undisclosed agreements, I'm OK with >that, but there cannot be two types of undisclosed agreements. One type >is the forgotten alert, the forgotten system. That is routinely dealt >with with an adjusted score, based on what would have happened if the >information had correctly reached the opponents. >What the English are doing is creating a separate kind of MI, which is >dealt with scrapping the board and writing down 60%-0%. That, IMO, makes >this an illegal regulation. > >Herman. >_______________________________________________ +=+ This may awaken DALB from his slumbers. Grattan +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 1 13:37:43 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 12:37:43 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] For information Message-ID: <5026089.1251805063009.JavaMail.root@ps32.mc.tiscali.sys> I am still having intermittent problems with the technology here and with email sending. However, be it known I hope to excite discussion on blml in due course with the outcome of (probably) two WBFLC meetings here in Sao Paulo. Some of the recent blml discussions have triggered items on the agenda* agreed with Ton K and mostly the expectations look predictable, but not all. [* 19 topics, half a dozen or so disposable in one minute each] = Grattan = +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 1 15:17:46 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:17:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <15842608.1251803286760.JavaMail.root@ps32.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <15842608.1251803286760.JavaMail.root@ps32.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 06:08 To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>----Original Message---- >>From: Hermandw at skynet.be >>Date: 01/09/2009 8:51 >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>Subj: Re: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >>richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> >>> While Bob's pass of 4Hx is legal in the ACBL under 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). >>> >>> in England Bob's pass would be an illegal fielding of a Red Misbid, >>> which makes one wonder whether the EBU Red Misbid regulation is legal. >>> >> >>Is there any doubt that that particular regulation is illegal? >>How can the fielding of a psyche ever be illegal? >>But I don't think it is the fielding which the EBU considers illegal, >>but rather the psyche, when fielded. >>But that too is illegal, IMO. >>The fielding would be evidence of undisclosed agreements, I'm OK with >>that, It is a 'fool' that makes it system to bluff. It is one thing to choose to bluff in certain situations and quite another to consistently bluff [read systemic] in those situations. In the former there is prospect of gain in the long run should the choosing be judicious. For the latter there is the consistent prospect of great loss from the lack of ability to know where all the pot holes are. It is the mark of grave stupidity to impose as system upon a player what he does, because what a player does often has little relation to what he had promised to do. As such, when a player improperly fields his partner's bluff it almost is never evidence of an improperly concealed agreement. Personally, I am aware of but one occasion when a bluff was made in the guise of system. As it was recent and the facts are certain I'll recount them. In the 2009 Spingold an opponent told Gitelman [who asked] the meaning of a call in a sequence. The opponents left the table and decided that the sequence would systemically mean something else and would [improperly] alert it when it came up and do nothing else to dispel the previous lie. Which in fact they did. Certainly there have been more occasions, but one in over twenty years constitutes rare. However, when a bluff occurs it actually is the availability of UI which suggests evidence of an improper bluff, or improper action thereafter. It is the availability of UI that can suggest that the conditions are favorable for a bluff [such as partner's likely action won't be accused of improper fielding], or, that partner has deviated. And without those cues of partner's manner, how is a player to know he is cheating should he then deviate after his partner's bluff- unless he has a secret code. But how is he to know the secret code is on or off without UI? The truth is that almost no player is able to have a non-secret code as well as a secret code and process the information without giving himself away in short order. regards roger pewick >>but there cannot be two types of undisclosed agreements. One type >>is the forgotten alert, the forgotten system. That is routinely dealt >>with with an adjusted score, based on what would have happened if the >>information had correctly reached the opponents. >>What the English are doing is creating a separate kind of MI, which is >>dealt with scrapping the board and writing down 60%-0%. That, IMO, makes >>this an illegal regulation. >>Herman. >>_______________________________________________ > +=+ This may awaken DALB from his slumbers. > Grattan +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 1 23:19:27 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 14:19:27 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Inconsistency Message-ID: <4344F5B812954191BC447C9B5D8D06B9@MARVLAPTOP> The WBF LC wants to rectify rather than penalizie irregularities. The ACBL leans in the other direction. Bur are they consistent? WBF LC: The non-offenders get a rectifying score adjustment even if the opposing illegal contract made only because of a "serious error" by them. ACBL: Ignore Law 12C(b), which we don't understand. Table result stands, show no pity. WBF LC: The offenders get the most unfavorable result that was at all probable subsequent to the irregularity, which may be worse than a mere rectification and is therefore a penalty. Hang the b____s. ACBL The offenders get the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred. Rectify, don't penalize. WBF LC: Change the assumed play of the cards when adjusting the OS score to remove any "serious error" by the NOS, thereby adding a penalty to the rectification. ACBL: The play of the cards is normally assumed to be the same, including "serious error." Rectify, don't penalize. Both: Why not just say an insufficient bid is UI for partner? Why the special treatment? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 2 01:28:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:28:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <549A7D24CDFE4BADBCD88DB32D1AF0BD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: .....and provided civil language is used all the better for it. Grattan +=+ Lois McMaster Bujold, "A Civil Campaign", page 309: An uncomfortable silence fell, after this. Ekaterin realized she ought to invite the pair of them to lunch, except that she didn't feel like inviting them to continue breathing. Marvin French (14th August 2009): [snip] >Since the 2007 Laws are copyrighted by the WBF, it doesn't seem >legal for the ACBL to download them, make unauthorized changes, >and publish them as the 2008 Laws of Duplicate Bridge for North >America. The authority to "promulgate" does not include the >right to make significant changes. Richard Hills: Until yesterday I had read only the ACBL version of the 1975 Lawbook, but last night a Canberra Director (and blml lurker) kindly gave me a copy of the WBF's 1975 Lawbook. Sunset Boulevard (1950): Joe Gillis: You used to be in pictures. You used to be big. Norma Desmond: I am big. It's the pictures that got small. Richard Hills: Yes, the changes that the ACBL made to the WBF's 2007 Lawbook are small compared to the big changes that the ACBL made to the WBF's 1975 Lawbook. In addition to the sensible ACBL change of sub- dividing Laws into lettered clauses, each with its own heading, the ACBL also indulged in wholesale deletion of 1975 WBF Laws. This is demonstrated by (despite the Proprieties not gaining Law numbers until the 1987 Lawbook) the highest Law number in the WBF's 1975 Lawbook being number 117. 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 Sep 2 05:34:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:34:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9CD29D.1060408@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael suggested: [big snip] >>What the English are doing is creating a separate kind of MI, which >>is dealt with scrapping the board and writing down 60%-0%. That, >>IMO, makes this an illegal regulation. >> >>Herman. Richard Hills yes-and-no: In my opinion Yes the EBU Red Misbid regulation is illegal, but also in my opinion No not for the reasons suggested by Herman De Wael. Law 12C1(d): "If the possibilities are numerous or **not obvious**, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score." Law 12C2(a): "...average minus (**at most** 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault..." 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 Sep 2 06:47:26 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:47:26 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <78A2E513F0654CD292A72648A6C2E4B6@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills > Marvin French (14th August 2009): > > [snip] > >>Since the 2007 Laws are copyrighted by the WBF, it doesn't seem >>legal for the ACBL to download them, make unauthorized changes, >>and publish them as the 2008 Laws of Duplicate Bridge for North >>America. The authority to "promulgate" does not include the >>right to make significant changes. > > Richard Hills: > > Until yesterday I had read only the ACBL version of the 1975 > Lawbook, but last night a Canberra Director (and blml lurker) > kindly gave me a copy of the WBF's 1975 Lawbook. > > Sunset Boulevard (1950): > > Joe Gillis: You used to be in pictures. You used to be big. > Norma Desmond: I am big. It's the pictures that got small. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, the changes that the ACBL made to the WBF's 2007 Lawbook are > small compared to the big changes that the ACBL made to the WBF's > 1975 Lawbook. In addition to the sensible ACBL change of sub- > dividing Laws into lettered clauses, each with its own heading, > the ACBL also indulged in wholesale deletion of 1975 WBF Laws. > > This is demonstrated by (despite the Proprieties not gaining Law > numbers until the 1987 Lawbook) the highest Law number in the > WBF's 1975 Lawbook being number 117. But did the changes amount to anything significant? The Preface to the ACBL's 1975 Lawbook included this: "The American edition is substantially identical to the new International Code; however, there is a considerable difference in form. Largely owing to the efforts of Donald Oakie, the Laws have been reorganized under many additional sub-headings, with the object of making it easier to find, in the table of contents, that provision of Law applicable to a particular case. The new format has necessitated minor changes in wording, but in no instance is there a change of substance. This edition may be regarded as an "American translation" of the International Code." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 2 07:17:56 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:17:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <78A2E513F0654CD292A72648A6C2E4B6@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Sunset Boulevard (1950): Joe Gillis: You used to be in pictures. You used to be big. Norma Desmond: I am big. It's the pictures that got small. Richard Hills: >>Yes, the changes that the ACBL made to the WBF's 2007 Lawbook are >>small compared to the big changes that the ACBL made to the WBF's >>1975 Lawbook. In addition to the sensible ACBL change of sub- >>dividing Laws into lettered clauses, each with its own heading, >>the ACBL also indulged in wholesale deletion of 1975 WBF Laws. >> >>This is demonstrated by (despite the Proprieties not gaining Law >>numbers until the 1987 Lawbook) the highest Law number in the >>WBF's 1975 Lawbook being number 117. Marv French: >But did the changes amount to anything significant? Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but almost anything can be defended as not a significant failure. Politicians do not appreciate the significance of 'significant'." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 2 09:43:44 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:43:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael suggested: > > [big snip] > >>> What the English are doing is creating a separate kind of MI, which >>> is dealt with scrapping the board and writing down 60%-0%. That, >>> IMO, makes this an illegal regulation. >>> >>> Herman. > > Richard Hills yes-and-no: > > In my opinion Yes the EBU Red Misbid regulation is illegal, but also > in my opinion No not for the reasons suggested by Herman De Wael. > Typical Richard answer. Agreeing with Herman is impossible, even when Herman is right. > Law 12C1(d): > > "If the possibilities are numerous or **not obvious**, the Director > may award an artificial adjusted score." > > Law 12C2(a): > > "...average minus (**at most** 40% of the available matchpoints in > pairs) to a contestant directly at fault..." > If this is Richard's way of disagreeing with Herman, then he's wide off the mark. What Richard is saying is that 60%-0% is a possible L12 score. Yes, Richard, it is. And if an individual director says "I deem the adjusted score to be 0%", I would not mind, if that is his estimate of "what would have happened if the NOS had received correct information". But that is not what the EBU are doing. They are syaing: "regardless of what would have happened with complete information, we instruct the director to award 60%-0%". That is the invention of a new infraction, not provided for within the laws. And Richard seems to be agreeing with this, even if it means he has to agree with Herman. Don't worry, Richard, there are worse things in life than having to admit Herman is right once in a while. ;) Herman. > > 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 Wed Sep 2 10:35:07 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:35:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <32184535.1251880507788.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael > And Richard seems to be agreeing with this, even if it means he has to > agree with Herman. Don't worry, Richard, there are worse things in life > than having to admit Herman is right once in a while. ;) Agreeing with Herman is easier for you than for Richard :-) Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 2 10:48:41 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:48:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <32184535.1251880507788.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <32184535.1251880507788.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4A9E3169.1010702@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael >> And Richard seems to be agreeing with this, even if it means he has to >> agree with Herman. Don't worry, Richard, there are worse things in life >> than having to admit Herman is right once in a while. ;) > > Agreeing with Herman is easier for you than for Richard :-) > You think? Sometimes that Herman guy expresses such strange opinions even I don't agree with him. :) Herman2 schizophrenia is fun - you always have someone to talk to! > > Thomas > > Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Wed Sep 2 11:18:46 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:18:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Herman De Wael suggested: >> >> [big snip] >> >>>> What the English are doing is creating a separate kind of MI, which >>>> is dealt with scrapping the board and writing down 60%-0%. That, >>>> IMO, makes this an illegal regulation. >>>> >>>> Herman. >> >> Richard Hills yes-and-no: >> >> In my opinion Yes the EBU Red Misbid regulation is illegal, but also >> in my opinion No not for the reasons suggested by Herman De Wael. >> > > Typical Richard answer. Agreeing with Herman is impossible, even when > Herman is right. > >> Law 12C1(d): >> >> "If the possibilities are numerous or **not obvious**, the Director >> may award an artificial adjusted score." >> >> Law 12C2(a): >> >> "...average minus (**at most** 40% of the available matchpoints in >> pairs) to a contestant directly at fault..." >> > > If this is Richard's way of disagreeing with Herman, then he's wide off > the mark. > What Richard is saying is that 60%-0% is a possible L12 score. Yes, > Richard, it is. And if an individual director says "I deem the adjusted > score to be 0%", I would not mind, if that is his estimate of "what > would have happened if the NOS had received correct information". > > But that is not what the EBU are doing. They are syaing: "regardless of > what would have happened with complete information, we instruct the > director to award 60%-0%". That is the invention of a new infraction, > not provided for within the laws. Just where do you read 60%-0%? I confess I dont like the whole concept of "Red Misbid" much but some of the comments here are ignorant of the regulation and what it is trying to do The regulation is not designed to deal with MI but CPUs (Concealed partnership agreements) Mike > > And Richard seems to be agreeing with this, even if it means he has to > agree with Herman. Don't worry, Richard, there are worse things in life > than having to admit Herman is right once in a while. ;) > > Herman. > >> >> Best wishes >> >> R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 >> Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >> Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >> advise >> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This >> email, >> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >> privileged >> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental >> privacy >> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. >> See: >> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 2 12:36:01 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:36:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> Mike Amos wrote: >> >> But that is not what the EBU are doing. They are syaing: "regardless of >> what would have happened with complete information, we instruct the >> director to award 60%-0%". That is the invention of a new infraction, >> not provided for within the laws. > > Just where do you read 60%-0%? > I confess I dont like the whole concept of "Red Misbid" much but some of the > comments here are ignorant of the regulation and what it is trying to do > I am not an expert. > The regulation is not designed to deal with MI but CPUs (Concealed > partnership agreements) > > Mike > And this is exactly the problem. Where in the laws do the EBU find that there are two distinct infractions, one called MI, and another called CPU? MI and CPU are two abbreviations for the same infraction!!!! When there was a mention of CPU in the laws (1997 version, no longer present in the 2007 ones), this was as a heading for the law destined to deal with misinformation! Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 2 12:50:27 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:50:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com> [HdW] Where in the laws do the EBU find that there are two distinct infractions, one called MI, and another called CPU? MI and CPU are two abbreviations for the same infraction!!!! [DALB] Not really. Misinformation is an accident, concealed partnership understandings are deliberate (or, in the case of a red psyche or a red misbid, presumed to be deliberate even though they may not actually have been so). David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 2 13:43:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:43:06 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <28122354.1251891786990.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com >Date: 02/09/2009 10:18 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Herman De Wael" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 8:43 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Herman De Wael suggested: >>> >>> [big snip] >>> >>>>> What the English are doing is creating a separate kind of MI, which >>>>> is dealt with scrapping the board and writing down 60%-0%. That, >>>>> IMO, makes this an illegal regulation. >>>>> >>>>> Herman. >>> >>> Richard Hills yes-and-no: >>> >>> In my opinion Yes the EBU Red Misbid regulation is illegal, but also >>> in my opinion No not for the reasons suggested by Herman De Wael. >>> >> >> Typical Richard answer. Agreeing with Herman is impossible, even when >> Herman is right. >> >>> Law 12C1(d): >>> >>> "If the possibilities are numerous or **not obvious**, the Director >>> may award an artificial adjusted score." >>> >>> Law 12C2(a): >>> >>> "...average minus (**at most** 40% of the available matchpoints in >>> pairs) to a contestant directly at fault..." >>> >> >> If this is Richard's way of disagreeing with Herman, then he's wide off >> the mark. >> What Richard is saying is that 60%-0% is a possible L12 score. Yes, >> Richard, it is. And if an individual director says "I deem the adjusted >> score to be 0%", I would not mind, if that is his estimate of "what >> would have happened if the NOS had received correct information". >> >> But that is not what the EBU are doing. They are syaing: "regardless of >> what would have happened with complete information, we instruct the >> director to award 60%-0%". That is the invention of a new infraction, >> not provided for within the laws. > >Just where do you read 60%-0%? >I confess I dont like the whole concept of "Red Misbid" much but some of the >comments here are ignorant of the regulation and what it is trying to do > >The regulation is not designed to deal with MI but CPUs (Concealed >partnership agreements) > >Mike > >> >> And Richard seems to be agreeing with this, even if it means he has to >> agree with Herman. Don't worry, Richard, there are worse things in life >> than having to admit Herman is right once in a while. ;) >> >> Herman. >> +=+ So perhaps the regulation should be linked in this thread with the relevant law dealing with CPUs? We may examine Law 40A3, 73E and Law 73B2. Grattan +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 2 17:20:06 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:20:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Help (I need somebody -- double UI ruling) Message-ID: <49471.24.46.179.117.1251904806.squirrel@email.powweb.com> North said "That's Mitchel Stayman". South said "No it's not". Director is called. Everyone here thinks that at this point I should stop play and award A+/A-. Someone says they got that answer from the ACBL too. Am I missing something? I can't see any way to get to that ruling. From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 2 18:30:20 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 18:30:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Help (I need somebody -- double UI ruling) In-Reply-To: <49471.24.46.179.117.1251904806.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <49471.24.46.179.117.1251904806.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <24998373.1251909020721.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: > North said "That's Mitchel Stayman". South said "No it's not". Director is > called. > > Everyone here thinks that at this point I should stop play and award > A+/A-. Someone says they got that answer from the ACBL too. Am I missing > something? I can't see any way to get to that ruling. Because of the UI, the player who forgot the system is not allowed to "remember" their system, and the other player is not allowed to use the UI that his partner forgot the system. Bidding continues. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 2 18:59:27 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:59:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com> References: <4A9E2230.5010701@skynet.be> <4A9E4A91.6090803@skynet.be> <000001ca2bbb$2f348410$8d9d8c30$@com> Message-ID: <4A9EA46F.7050606@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Where in the laws do the EBU find that there are two distinct infractions, > one called MI, and another called CPU? > MI and CPU are two abbreviations for the same infraction!!!! > > [DALB] > > Not really. Misinformation is an accident, concealed partnership > understandings are deliberate (or, in the case of a red psyche or a red > misbid, presumed to be deliberate even though they may not actually have > been so). > OK, maybe they are - we can argue about your statement, as some MI are deliberate and some psyches will be accidental, but that does not matter. If an infraction is done deliberately, then there are ways of dealing with that, and additional PPs. But the infraction itself is not dealt with any different. 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). And if we issue PPs, that's a separate issue. But what the EBU is doing is saying: if you do it accidentally, we give you the score you would have got without the infraction, but if you do it deliberately, we give you 60/0. They could be excused for saying: we give you the score you would have got minus 20%, but that is not what they are doing. The EBU have invented a new infraction, which they call "deliberate MI", or "CPU", and they have invented a totally new penalty for it. Aside of which, what do you do if a player delilberately gives MI? The same 60/0? Or is that yet another infraction? > David Burn > London, England > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 2 19:05:00 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:05:00 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <0E0879B1214B4CC1842885DF9467CB48@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills: > Marv French: > >>But did the changes amount to anything significant? > > Sir Humphrey Appleby: > > "Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but almost anything > can be defended as not a significant failure. Politicians do not > appreciate the significance of 'significant'." The Preface to the ACBL's 1975 Lawbook used the word "substantive," which I should have used perhaps. Not much difference in the meaning. Richard should have included my quote of the Preface when poo-pooing it, so I'll repeat it: "The American edition is substantially identical to the new International Code; however, there is a considerable difference in form. Largely owing to the efforts of Donald Oakie, the Laws have been reorganized under many additional sub-headings, with the object of making it easier to find, in the table of contents, that provision of Law applicable to a particular case. The new format has necessitated minor changes in wording, but in no instance is there a change of substance. This edition may be regarded as an "American translation" of the International Code." Edgar Kaplan was on the Drafting Committee for the International Code, and was chairman of the ACBL LC at the time. I doubt that he would have allowed any "substantive" change. I believe the "2008" ACBL edition of the 2007 Laws is the first among my collection of previous Lawbooks to include substantive changes. There may be more than two, but I am concerned only with two blatant examples: L12C1(e)(ii), the addition of "had the irregularity not occurred" and the ludicrous change to the artificial score of avg- contained in the footnote to L12C2(c): "...when there is a non-offending and an offendng contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the [standard avg+]. Their opponents receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their scores on other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%." Why on earth would they base the NOS score on the OS performance in the session? Because of the far-fetched danger that a contestant would deliberately obtain an avg- of 40% rather than the worse score likely when facing an expert pair. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 3 01:08:03 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:08:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <28122354.1251891786990.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: Russell Ash and Brian Lake, "Bizarre Books" (2006 edition): Handbook for the Limbless (Disabled Society, 1922) Thomas Dehn: >Agreeing with Herman is easier for you than for Richard :-) Herman De Wael: >You think? Sometimes that Herman guy expresses such strange >opinions even I don't agree with him. :) > >Herman2 >schizophrenia is fun - you always have someone to talk to! > >..... > >Where in the laws do the EBU find that there are two distinct >infractions, one called MI, and another called CPU? > >MI and CPU are two abbreviations for the same infraction!!!! Richard Hills: On this point, I agree both with Herman and also with Herman2. David Burn: >Not really. Misinformation is an accident, concealed >partnership understandings are deliberate (or, in the case of >a red psyche or a red misbid, presumed to be deliberate even >though they may not actually have been so). Richard Hills: Not really. The 2007 Law 40 refers only to an "undisclosed partnership understanding" (UPU, no longer CPU) and hence the 2007 Law 40 no longer addresses matters of intent. Any intentional infringing of any Law is addressed by Law 72B1. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ So perhaps the regulation should be linked in this thread >with the relevant law dealing with CPUs? We may examine Law >40A3, 73E and Law 73B2. > Grattan +=+ Richard Hills: An incomplete listing of Laws, since the primary Law which invalidates the arbitrarily unjust EBU Red Misbid regulation (which ties the hands of EBU TDs) is: Law 85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: A. Director's Assessment 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. 2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84. B. Facts Not Determined If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue. 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 Sep 3 01:35:30 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:35:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0E0879B1214B4CC1842885DF9467CB48@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but almost anything can be defended as not a significant failure. Politicians do not appreciate the significance of 'significant'." Marv French: >The Preface to the ACBL's 1975 Lawbook used the word >"substantive," which I should have used perhaps. Not much >difference in the meaning. [snip] >Edgar Kaplan was on the Drafting Committee for the International >Code, and was chairman of the ACBL LC at the time. I doubt that >he would have allowed any "substantive" change. Richard Hills: Interesting use of the word "doubt" by Marv, since both he and I enjoyed the highly ambiguous movie "Doubt" (starring Meryl Streep). Marv French: >I believe the "2008" ACBL edition of the 2007 Laws is the first >among my collection of previous Lawbooks to include substantive >changes. [snip] Richard Hills: To test whether Marv's doubtful belief is well-founded, next week I will post a comprehensive comparison of the two 1975 Lawbooks. 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 Sep 3 02:31:01 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:31:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Russell Ash and Brian Lake, "Bizarre Books" (2006 edition): The Art of Faking Exhibition Poultry George Ryley Scott, 1934 "The author treads an indistinct line between condemning this widespread and despicable practice, and telling the reader exactly how to do it. Scott also wrote books on: nudism, birth control, flogging, capital punishment, torture, prostitution, obscene libel, sex guides, venereal disease, cockfighting, rejuvenation and phallic worship." Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C (1) 2S (2) Pass ? (1) Benjy Acol style; on average slightly longer clubs and slighter fewer hcp than a Two-Over-One Game Force 1C opening bid. (2) Intermediate, no particular hcp range, but shows 6 playing tricks. You, South, hold: A5 KJT73 AKT AJ2 What bizarre call do you make? What other bizarre calls do you consider making? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 3 07:57:41 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:57:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] BLML archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In good King Charles's golden days, When Loyalty no harm meant; A Zealous High-Church man I was, And so I gain'd Preferment. Unto my Flock I daily Preach'd, Kings are by God appointed, And Damn'd are those who dare resist, Or touch the Lord's Anointed. And this is law, I will maintain Unto my Dying Day, Sir. That whatsoever King may reign, I will be the Vicar of Bray, Sir! The Vicar of Endicott, 1st November 2002: +=+ 'fully' = In a full degree, completely, entirely 'freely' = unreservedly, without restraint 'available' = at one's disposal It seems to me that whoever inspired the inclusion of these words in [the 1997] Law 75 in their present context was reaching for some golden apple, et il est tombe' dans les ordures. The words themselves first appeared in the 1975 book, but compare what was written there: "It is improper to convey information to partner by means of a call or play based on [special] partnership agreement, whether explicit or implicit, unless such information is fully and freely available to the opponents." In 1987 the statement changed, and I have not yet traced in my papers any explanation for the change. It does appear, however, that compliance with the requirement now presented could well entail conveying one's entire system file to opponents, at the table or beforehand. (On disk, maybe, in the manner of P O handing in his system notes at European championships.) I shall be looking for some other form of words, more modest in scope, with which to express an achievable and acceptable level of disclosure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ David Stevenson, 2nd November 2002: One of Grattan's strengths can be seen when someone here is offensive to him: he never reacts to the offensiveness. The Vicar of Endicott, 2nd November 2002: +=+ Not wholly true. If I react it may be with stiletto clad in the velvet cloth of irony. +=+ When Royal James possest the crown, And popery grew in fashion; The Penal Law I shouted down, And read the Declaration: The Church of Rome I found would fit Full well my Constitution, And I had been a Jesuit, But for the Revolution. And this is law, I will maintain Unto my Dying Day, Sir. That whatsoever King may reign, I will be the Vicar of Bray, Sir! 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 Sep 3 09:04:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:04:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] BLML archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn, 2nd November 2002: [snip] >I think that ordinary players expect the rules to be (a) simple and >(b) comprehensible, so that (c) they can be applied to any instance >of the game anywhere in the world by even the least competent of >referees. "Fairness", in the sense in which this concept applies in >everyday life, is a very long way down the list. And exactly insofar >as you attempt to make "fairness" a priority, you will fail in every >one of objectives (a), (b) and (c) above. [snip] >You can only know you're cheating* if you know what the rules are. >And even we don't know that. > >David Burn >London, England Herman De Wael intentional misquote: >>Typical Richard answer. Agreeing with Robert Frick is impossible, >>even when Robert Frick is right. Richard Hills quibbles: Actually on this topic I agree with Robert Frick, and disagree with David Burn. For example, the WBF Laws Committee has specifically stated that "fairness" a.k.a. "in the Director's opinion" is now a criterion for a Director resolving a Law 27B1 insufficient bid. Likewise "fairness" a.k.a. "equity" is a key criterion whenever the Director has a Law 84D discretionary ruling. Of course, this merely means that the WBF Drafting Committee has failed David Burn's (a), (b) and (c) expectations (or, to be more precise, has failed DALB's anecdotal belief about what ordinary players expect). As for David's final point, despite me Indexing the Lawbook even I do not fully understand the rules (one of the reasons I continue on blml with the other reason being to intentionally misquote). But does this mean that I might unintentionally cheat*? Hypothetical clarification -> A newbie to duplicate bridge is a highly experienced poker player, so due to ignorance of The Fabulous Law Book the newbie bluffed by hesitating with a singleton. No disciplinary penalty, merely the mildest procedural penalty of education from the TD, so that the newbie realises that duplicate bridge and poker have differences in Law and Proprieties. That is, I argue that "unintentionally cheat*" is an oxymoron, like "military intelligence" or "Richard Hills". Best wishes R.J.B. Hills * The laws do not anywhere use the word. (Grattan, 11 December 2008) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Thu Sep 3 10:23:48 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:23:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A9F7D14.2050605@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C (1) 2S (2) Pass ? > > (1) Benjy Acol style; on average slightly longer clubs and slighter > fewer hcp than a Two-Over-One Game Force 1C opening bid. > > (2) Intermediate, no particular hcp range, but shows 6 playing tricks. > > You, South, hold: > > A5 > KJT73 > AKT > AJ2 > > What bizarre call do you make? > 2NT, transfer-cue, usually a raise > What other bizarre calls do you consider making? > 3D, transfer to hearts, to be followed by 4S as a mild slam try suggesting that a Heart honor would be welcome. 3H, transfer-raise implying a flat hand ; then 4C 4H, fit-jump, but it looks inferior with so much strength in the mnors Is that bizarre enough ? Anyway, it's my system. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Thu Sep 3 11:23:53 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:23:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24068029.1251969833933.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C (1) 2S (2) Pass ? > > (1) Benjy Acol style; on average slightly longer clubs and slighter > fewer hcp than a Two-Over-One Game Force 1C opening bid. > > (2) Intermediate, no particular hcp range, but shows 6 playing tricks. > > You, South, hold: > > A5 > KJT73 > AKT > AJ2 > > What bizarre call do you make? 2NT, any invitiational or better hand I will probably end up playing 3NT, despite partner having seven spades. > What other bizarre calls do you consider making? none right now. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From adam at irvine.com Thu Sep 3 17:33:43 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:33:43 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:31:01 +1000." Message-ID: <200909031526.IAA17225@mailhub.irvine.com> > Russell Ash and Brian Lake, "Bizarre Books" (2006 edition): > > The Art of Faking Exhibition Poultry > George Ryley Scott, 1934 > > "The author treads an indistinct line between condemning this > widespread and despicable practice, and telling the reader exactly how > to do it. > Scott also wrote books on: nudism, birth control, flogging, capital > punishment, torture, prostitution, obscene libel, sex guides, venereal > disease, cockfighting, rejuvenation and phallic worship." > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C (1) 2S (2) Pass ? > > (1) Benjy Acol style; on average slightly longer clubs and slighter > fewer hcp than a Two-Over-One Game Force 1C opening bid. > > (2) Intermediate, no particular hcp range, but shows 6 playing tricks. > > You, South, hold: > > A5 > KJT73 > AKT > AJ2 > > What bizarre call do you make? If the requirements are that (1) my call be bizarre and (2) that it have something to do with a fake exhibition of poultry, then I pass. That really would be chicken. In real life, I'd consider 3H, 3C, 6NT, 6S. -- Adam From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 3 18:25:23 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:25:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200909031526.IAA17225@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200909031526.IAA17225@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4A9FEDF3.8000200@ulb.ac.be> Adam Beneschan a ?crit : > > >> Russell Ash and Brian Lake, "Bizarre Books" (2006 edition): >> >> The Art of Faking Exhibition Poultry >> George Ryley Scott, 1934 >> >> "The author treads an indistinct line between condemning this >> widespread and despicable practice, and telling the reader exactly how >> to do it. >> Scott also wrote books on: nudism, birth control, flogging, capital >> punishment, torture, prostitution, obscene libel, sex guides, venereal >> disease, cockfighting, rejuvenation and phallic worship." >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: West >> Vul: Both >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 1C (1) 2S (2) Pass ? >> >> (1) Benjy Acol style; on average slightly longer clubs and slighter >> fewer hcp than a Two-Over-One Game Force 1C opening bid. >> >> (2) Intermediate, no particular hcp range, but shows 6 playing tricks. >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> A5 >> KJT73 >> AKT >> AJ2 >> >> What bizarre call do you make? >> > > If the requirements are that (1) my call be bizarre and (2) that it > have something to do with a fake exhibition of poultry, then I pass. > That really would be chicken. > > In real life, I'd consider 3H, 3C, 6NT, 6S. > > AG : 6NT seems a bit excessive if partner is allowed to hold KQJ10xxx and out, as seems to be implied (6 tricks !). I guess the chicken bid was 4S, and caught partner with less than expected, so that MI and/or psyche come into consideration. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 3 21:32:26 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:32:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Help (I need somebody -- double UI ruling) In-Reply-To: <24998373.1251909020721.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> References: <49471.24.46.179.117.1251904806.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <24998373.1251909020721.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thanks, and thanks to Richard who answered offline. It doesn't help me here to convince them I am anything but crazy and stubborn, because they just follow the ACBL. But it helps my own sanity. On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:30:20 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > rfrick at rfrick.info wrote: >> North said "That's Mitchel Stayman". South said "No it's not". Director >> is >> called. >> >> Everyone here thinks that at this point I should stop play and award >> A+/A-. Someone says they got that answer from the ACBL too. Am I missing >> something? I can't see any way to get to that ruling. > > Because of the UI, the player who forgot the system > is not allowed to "remember" their system, and > the other player is not allowed to use the UI that > his partner forgot the system. > > Bidding continues. > > > Thomas > > Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den > neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 4 01:43:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:43:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9FEDF3.8000200@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >>>Russell Ash and Brian Lake, "Bizarre Books" (2006 edition): >>> >>>The Art of Faking Exhibition Poultry >>>George Ryley Scott, 1934 >>> >>>"The author treads an indistinct line between condemning this >>>widespread and despicable practice, and telling the reader exactly how >>>to do it. >>> Scott also wrote books on: nudism, birth control, flogging, capital >>>punishment, torture, prostitution, obscene libel, sex guides, venereal >>>disease, cockfighting, rejuvenation and phallic worship." >>> >>>Matchpoint pairs >>>Dlr: West >>>Vul: Both >>> >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>1C (1) 2S (2) Pass ? >>> >>>(1) Benjy Acol style; on average slightly longer clubs and slighter >>> fewer hcp than a Two-Over-One Game Force 1C opening bid. >>> >>>(2) Intermediate, no particular hcp range, but shows 6 playing tricks. >>> >>>You, South, hold: >>> >>>A5 >>>KJT73 >>>AKT >>>AJ2 >>> >>>What bizarre call do you make? Adam Beneschan: >>If the requirements are that (1) my call be bizarre and (2) that it >>have something to do with a fake exhibition of poultry, then I pass. >>That really would be chicken. >> >>In real life, I'd consider 3H, 3C, 6NT, 6S. Richard Hills: In real life I would choose Keycard Blackwood, intending to bid 7S if pard holds KQ of spades and the heart ace. If my optimism forces pard to eventually take a losing two-way heart finesse, then c'est la vie, at matchpoint pairs -100 is only a bottom. But 7S requires LHO's opening bid to be a fake exhibition of poultry. Given South's ginormous high cards suggest that West or North must have psyched, is there any AI as to whodunnit? Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : 6NT seems a bit excessive if partner is allowed to hold KQJ10xxx >and out, as seems to be implied (6 tricks !). Richard Hills: In EBU-land describing such a hand as "intermediate" would be MI. The universal English definition would be "more high-card strength than a minimum 1S overcall, and also with a good 6-card spade suit". Alain Gottcheiner: >I guess the chicken bid was 4S, and caught partner with less than >expected, so that MI and/or psyche come into consideration. Richard Hills: Yes, South bizarrely signed off in 4S, and yes this worked when North held this fake exhibition of poultry. QJT8643 54 87 65 The evidence of South's signoff suggested, on the Law 85 balance of probabilities, that North-South had an implicit and partially undisclosed understanding to play a 2S jump overcall as a multi, either: (a) too many high cards and too much playing strength for a 1S overcall, or (b) too few high cards and too little playing strength for a 3S preempt. The EBU Director and Appeals Committee ruled Red Misbid, but the Appeals Committee bizarrely returned the deposit. 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 Sep 4 02:18:45 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:18:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Norm & Al [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Law 12A2: "On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86). This includes: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below)." Richard Hills: An ACBL Director who reads only the Law 12A2 word "normal" may be confused about the scope of his powers. Fortunately the cross- reference to "C2 below" contains an implicit definition of "abnormal". Law 12C2(a): "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)]....." 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 Sep 4 02:32:44 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:32:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Looking at hands (day in the life) Message-ID: 1S 2C P(1) P 2D (1) agreed hesitation. At this point I was called to the table and things were explained. I went into my standard spiel. Someone interrupted. "Can't you just look at her hand and tell us if she had her bid?" The whole table agreed. Sometimes, when they look at me like I am an idiot, I realize they are right. I looked at her hand, she of course had her bid, I told the table, and everyone was happy. I should note that there are two sections, which I call the good section and the friendly section. This was the friendly section. They play by different standards. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 4 02:49:29 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:49:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Norm & Al [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:18:45 -0400, wrote: > > Law 12A2: > > "On the application of a player within the period established under > Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted > score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86). > This includes: > The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification > can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below)." > > Richard Hills: > > An ACBL Director who reads only the Law 12A2 word "normal" may be > confused about the scope of his powers. Fortunately the cross- > reference to "C2 below" contains an implicit definition of "abnormal". > > Law 12C2(a): > > "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see > C1(d)]....." Hi Richard. There is a huge difference between "normal play is not possible" and "no result can be obtained". So to interpret "normal play is not possible" as really meaning "no play is possible" is really a stretch -- no one would write one if they meant the other. I like your interpretation, of course. My problem is that after double UI, everyone here wants to say that normal play wasn't possible. After all, you would have two people making bids they normally wouldn't make. I think they are right in their reading of the law. The problem is they aren't reading the law like you. Or like me. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 4 03:19:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:19:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Looking at hands (day in the life) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >1S 2C P(1) P >2D > >(1) agreed hesitation. > >At this point I was called to the table and things were >explained. I went into my standard spiel. > >Someone interrupted. "Can't you just look at her hand and tell us >if she had her bid?" > >The whole table agreed. > >Sometimes, when they look at me like I am an idiot, I realize they >are right. I looked at her hand, she of course had her bid, I told >the table, and everyone was happy. > >I should note that there are two sections, which I call the good >section and the friendly section. This was the friendly section. >They play by different standards. Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Richard Hills: At the Canberra Bridge Club we have a supervised play session, in which newbies may seek immediate advice during the bidding or play about "technique" from an assigned expert. These Conditions of Contest are legal, given that Law 40C3(a) permits an overriding regulation. Likewise, Bob's Directorial friendly advice to the friendly table is legal if there is a friendly Law 40C3(a) regulation permitting all four players to have immediate Directorial assistance to "calculate" whether the 2D rebid is an infraction. Of course, the Long Island Tournament Organizer omitted to create a prior regulation. No worries for Bob, since as Director he has retrospective power. 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 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 Sep 4 03:58:56 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:58:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] BLML archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn, 2nd November 2002: [snip] >>I think that ordinary players expect the rules to be (a) simple and >>(b) comprehensible, so that (c) they can be applied to any instance >>of the game anywhere in the world by even the least competent of >>referees. [snip] Sven Pran, 4th November 2002: [snip] >When the Norwegian road act received royal consent the minister read >(as is customary) the law and came to ?3: "Everybody shall travel with >caution and be observant and careful so that no damage or danger is >caused and so that other traffic is not unnecessarily hampered or >disturbed. Travellers shall also pay respect to those who live or stay >next to the road." > >The minister continued: "And then we have the next paragraph" to which >the King interrupted: >"Do we need anything more?" > >(Note: That ?3 is included in almost every criminal charge on reckless >driving etc. in Norway) > >regards Sven 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 Sep 4 05:53:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:53:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] BLML archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: BBC World News, 16th December 2008: Three ancient statues, engraved with a little-understood sub-Saharan language, have been unearthed in Sudan. The ram statues symbolise the god Amun, and include the first discovery of a complete royal dedication in Meroitic script, only found before in fragments. It is the oldest written sub-Saharan language and dates from the Meroe period of 300BC to AD450. Archaeologist Vincent Rondot said it was "an important discovery", but the inscriptions were hard to interpret. The statues were discovered three weeks ago at el-Hassa, a site close to Sudan's 50-odd Meroe pyramids, about 200 km (120 miles) north of the capital Khartoum. Mr Rondot said: "It is one of the last antique languages that we still don't understand. We can read it. We have no problem pronouncing the letters. But we can't understand it, apart from a few long words and the names of people." Experts are working on deciphering the inscriptions, using previously found fragments. "It is absolutely essential to understand it... We only need to read the last words remaining on the inscription," Mr Rondot, was quoted as saying by news agency AFP. The dig, funded by the French foreign ministry, is also providing more information on the reign of a little-known king, Amanakhareqerem, mentioned in the inscriptions on the rams. "Before we started the dig we only had four documents in his name. We don't even know where he was buried," he said. "We are beginning to understand the importance of that king," he said, according to Reuters news agency Herman De Wael, 6th November 2002: >>>>Come on Grattan, don't be silly. >>>> >>>>Would you award a PP to a beginner for something he did not know >>>>was wrong, or would you teach him? [snip] Grattan Endicott, 6th November 2002: >>>+=+ I write "could", a reference to the powers that the Director >>>may use if he thinks fit. You come back with "would" as though I >>>had said that whenever there is an infraction he must, regardless >>>of circumstance. >>> The solution may be for each of us to study the Meroitic >>>language in order to share a common tongue. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sven Pran, 6th November 2002: >>And to Grattan's own reply I shall add: Do not forget that a >>warning is the mildest form of a PP! >> >>When an irregularity deserves some reaction a warning is usually my >>first choice, especially if the irregularity is an excusable one, >>but the warning is still a PP. >> >>regards Sven John (MadDog) Probst, 6th November 2002: >I reckon 90% of my PPs are warnings. > >Me: "Actually, you're not allowed by the Law to do ." > >Her: (UnPC to annoy the list) "Sorry, I didn't know that - I'll bear >it in mind in future" is the most frequent response. > > YAY, WIN-WIN. cheers john Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 4 07:57:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:57:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] BLML archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ton Kooijman, 15th November 2002: >>>It is time for the Kooijman-doctrine, which is: >>> >>>We Have To Follow The Laws Of Bridge When Acting As TD. (I give up >>>the appeal committees, just received a message from a member of my >>>AC accusing me of following the laws regarding claims) Grattan Endicott, 15th November 2002: >>+=+ :-) you mean it confused her when you did? :-) +=+ Edgar Kaplan, 8th October 1989: [snip] >Note that the strange circumstances of this case arose only because of >a screen procedure, where a player explains her own bid: thus, the >absurd requirement that she give an accurate explanation of an >agreement she has honestly forgotten. The closest analogy in normal >bridge, without screens, is the position in which you know that your >partner has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four clubs, which is >supposed to show a strong heart opening with at least a semi-solid >suit, when you hold S Axx H KQJxx D. JTxxx C void. It is obvious from >your cards that he has forgotten the agreement, so you intend to pass >him right there. Richard Hills, 4th September 2009: It is theoretically possible that partner is not Walter the Walrus, so our non-Walrus partner may choose to upgrade a suit of H AT987654 to "semi-solid" status, and thus the EBU powers-that-be might argue that a Kaplanic pass of partner's 4C is an illegal fielding of a Red Misbid. Edgar Kaplan, 8th October 1989: >First though, your right-hand opponent asks about the four clubs bid. >Your explanation must be "Strong four hearts opening with a very good >heart suit". That is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe >your partnership agreement, not your partner's hand. Richard Hills, 4th September 2009: Yes, but ... What is our partnership agreement? **If** partner has **repeatedly** forgotten our Namyats convention before, **then** under Law 40C1 we now have an implicit two-way understanding that 4C is either weak with clubs or somewhat stronger with hearts. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 4 09:45:21 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:45:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA0C591.4000404@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>> Russell Ash and Brian Lake, "Bizarre Books" (2006 edition): >>>> >>>> The Art of Faking Exhibition Poultry >>>> George Ryley Scott, 1934 >>>> >>>> "The author treads an indistinct line between condemning this >>>> widespread and despicable practice, and telling the reader exactly how >>>> to do it. >>>> Scott also wrote books on: nudism, birth control, flogging, capital >>>> punishment, torture, prostitution, obscene libel, sex guides, venereal >>>> disease, cockfighting, rejuvenation and phallic worship." >>>> >>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>> Dlr: West >>>> Vul: Both >>>> >>>> The bidding has gone: >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> 1C (1) 2S (2) Pass ? >>>> >>>> (1) Benjy Acol style; on average slightly longer clubs and slighter >>>> fewer hcp than a Two-Over-One Game Force 1C opening bid. >>>> >>>> (2) Intermediate, no particular hcp range, but shows 6 playing tricks. >>>> >>>> You, South, hold: >>>> >>>> A5 >>>> KJT73 >>>> AKT >>>> AJ2 >>>> >>>> What bizarre call do you make? >>>> > > Adam Beneschan: > > >>> If the requirements are that (1) my call be bizarre and (2) that it >>> have something to do with a fake exhibition of poultry, then I pass. >>> That really would be chicken. >>> >>> In real life, I'd consider 3H, 3C, 6NT, 6S. >>> > > Richard Hills: > > In real life I would choose Keycard Blackwood, intending to bid 7S if > pard holds KQ of spades and the heart ace. If my optimism forces pard > to eventually take a losing two-way heart finesse, then c'est la vie, at > matchpoint pairs -100 is only a bottom. > > But 7S requires LHO's opening bid to be a fake exhibition of poultry. > Given South's ginormous high cards suggest that West or North must > have psyched, is there any AI as to whodunnit? > AG : I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. LHO could have a light opener like x - Axx - xxx - KQxxxx (Acol style). Partner could hold KQJxxxx - Qx - Qxx - x.. > Richard Hills: > > In EBU-land describing such a hand as "intermediate" would be MI. The complementary description was "6 tricks, HCP indifferent" IIRC > Richard Hills: > > Yes, South bizarrely signed off in 4S, and yes this worked when North > held this fake exhibition of poultry. > > QJT8643 > 54 > 87 > 65 > > The evidence of South's signoff suggested, on the Law 85 balance of > probabilities, that North-South had an implicit and partially > undisclosed understanding to play a 2S jump overcall as a multi, either: > > (a) too many high cards and too much playing strength for a 1S overcall, > > or > > (b) too few high cards and too little playing strength for a 3S preempt. > AG : this is so absurd that I can't imagine anybody thinking of such a gadget - and I'm usually keen to design strange conventions. The three possible rulings are : a) MI, voluntary or not - they're playing weak b) psyche, either amber or red (or even possibly green if opener "never" psyches) c) misbid cum poultry My gut choice is a), as usual. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 4 12:54:39 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:54:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AA0C591.4000404@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AA0C591.4000404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4907054.1252061679458.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >>>> Russell Ash and Brian Lake, "Bizarre Books" (2006 edition): > >>>> > >>>> The Art of Faking Exhibition Poultry > >>>> George Ryley Scott, 1934 > >>>> > >>>> "The author treads an indistinct line between condemning this > >>>> widespread and despicable practice, and telling the reader exactly how > >>>> to do it. > >>>> Scott also wrote books on: nudism, birth control, flogging, capital > >>>> punishment, torture, prostitution, obscene libel, sex guides, venereal > >>>> disease, cockfighting, rejuvenation and phallic worship." > >>>> > >>>> Matchpoint pairs > >>>> Dlr: West > >>>> Vul: Both > >>>> > >>>> The bidding has gone: > >>>> > >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>>> 1C (1) 2S (2) Pass ? > >>>> > >>>> (1) Benjy Acol style; on average slightly longer clubs and slighter > >>>> fewer hcp than a Two-Over-One Game Force 1C opening bid. > >>>> > >>>> (2) Intermediate, no particular hcp range, but shows 6 playing tricks. > >>>> > >>>> You, South, hold: > >>>> > >>>> A5 > >>>> KJT73 > >>>> AKT > >>>> AJ2 > >>>> > >>>> What bizarre call do you make? > >>>> > > > > Adam Beneschan: > > > > > >>> If the requirements are that (1) my call be bizarre and (2) that it > >>> have something to do with a fake exhibition of poultry, then I pass. > >>> That really would be chicken. > >>> > >>> In real life, I'd consider 3H, 3C, 6NT, 6S. > >>> > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > In real life I would choose Keycard Blackwood, intending to bid 7S if > > pard holds KQ of spades and the heart ace. If my optimism forces pard > > to eventually take a losing two-way heart finesse, then c'est la vie, at > > matchpoint pairs -100 is only a bottom. I think you did not understand the convention that is played. Partner can have S QJT98xxx and out, and similar collections of used tram tickets. You might easily go down in 5S. > > But 7S requires LHO's opening bid to be a fake exhibition of poultry. > > Given South's ginormous high cards suggest that West or North must > > have psyched, is there any AI as to whodunnit? > > > AG : I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. > LHO could have a light opener like x - Axx - xxx - KQxxxx (Acol style). > Partner could hold KQJxxxx - Qx - Qxx - x.. Yep. The bidding does not indicate a psyche. Why should LHO psyche a first seat 1C vulnerable? LHO probably has the HA and the C KQxxx(x), partner then probably has six spade tricks for his 2S overcall, and there are still the HQ and the DQJ left over. > > > Richard Hills: > > > > In EBU-land describing such a hand as "intermediate" would be MI. > The complementary description was "6 tricks, HCP indifferent" IIRC > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Yes, South bizarrely signed off in 4S, and yes this worked when North > > held this fake exhibition of poultry. > > > > QJT8643 > > 54 > > 87 > > 65 > > > > The evidence of South's signoff suggested, on the Law 85 balance of > > probabilities, that North-South had an implicit and partially > > undisclosed understanding to play a 2S jump overcall as a multi, either: > > > > (a) too many high cards and too much playing strength for a 1S overcall, > > > > or > > > > (b) too few high cards and too little playing strength for a 3S preempt. > > > AG : this is so absurd that I can't imagine anybody thinking of such a > gadget - and I'm usually keen to design strange conventions. > > The three possible rulings are : > > a) MI, voluntary or not - they're playing weak > b) psyche, either amber or red (or even possibly green if opener "never" > psyches) > c) misbid cum poultry > > > My gut choice is a), as usual. Indeed, looks like ordinary MI. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 4 13:53:28 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:53:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Norm & Al another reply In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:18:45 -0400, wrote: > > Law 12A2: > > "On the application of a player within the period established under > Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted > score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86). > This includes: > The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification > can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below)." > > Richard Hills: > > An ACBL Director who reads only the Law 12A2 word "normal" may be > confused about the scope of his powers. Fortunately the cross- > reference to "C2 below" contains an implicit definition of "abnormal". > > Law 12C2(a): > > "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see > C1(d)]....." If you read the cross-reference in the 1997 version, you can see that it just describes how to give an artificial adjusted score. Perhaps "normal play" should be restricted to the situation of picking up the board before play has started. For example, if a player looks at the score slip and finds out the results on the board, perhaps normal play is not possible. Or, it is twisting words beyond their dictionary definition, but perhaps if a regularity occurs that has an indentifiable rectification, then "normal play" occurs when the rectification is followed, no matter how bizarre the player's actions might then become. The basic problem is this. A player opens the bidding 1C and his partner's turn to bid. The rule is that his partner is now barred from the auction. That pretty much prevents normal play of the board. How can we justify not appplying L12A2? Other than common sense, which hasn't gotten me nowhere. (The presenting problem was double UI when the player said his partner's explanation wasn't correct.) Or maybe a lot of directors would apply L12A2 in this situation. From taigabridge at hotmail.com Sat Sep 5 20:17:19 2009 From: taigabridge at hotmail.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 10:17:19 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >>>>>> The Art of Faking Exhibition Poultry >>>>>> George Ryley Scott, 1934 I actually read one of this gentleman's books some years ago. I forget if it was the flogging or capital punishment one; it was decidedly dry and unsensationalized. >>>>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>>>> Dlr: West >>>>>> Vul: Both >>>>>> >>>>>> The bidding has gone: >>>>>> >>>>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>>>> 1C (1) 2S (2) Pass ? >>>>>> A5 >>>>>> KJT73 >>>>>> AKT >>>>>> AJ2 >>>>>> >>>>>> What bizarre call do you make? Partner says he has six playing tricks. I have four (SA, DA, DK, CA), and an expectation that finesses in the round suits are likely to lose. The raise to 4S is obvious. Anything ELSE, like trying for slam, would be bizarre. (This is assuming South is a good enough player to "count tricks, not points," and given the explanation of the 2S bid I feel obligated to assume he is.) Do notice that six playing tricks is only one trick stronger than a standard preempt would be. As such, KQJxxx xxx xx Kx would be acceptable (leaving x AQx QJx Qxxxxx for opener, perhaps? A bit light but I've seen crazier. OK, give partner KT9xxxx or QJxxxxx, and that frees up another face card for opener.) That is assuming the explanation was, in fact, "six playing tricks," not just "intermediate." There are a lot of idiots who make "intermediate jump overcalls" on 15 HCP and a KJxxx suit in my club. Heh. GRB _________________________________________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1 From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 6 05:21:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Using L17E2 in the auction Message-ID: LHO opens a weak two hearts, then you get a pass out of turn from RHO before partner can bid. The director is called. You have about 10 points, 4 or 5 spades, but not quite enough to overcall. Should you accept RHO's pass out of turn? Answer: Yes. LHO will almost surely pass. The auction reverts to partner. Your pass is AI to partner (L16D1), so you can take strong action and partner will know you have a limited hand. For example, if partner passes, you can bid 2S to show a 5-card spade suit and about 10 HCP. Or if partner doubles, you can jump the bidding even if that otherwise would show an opening hand. From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Sun Sep 6 12:21:34 2009 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 22:21:34 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Equity and unlosable tricks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <077F4791510A41B89BB04CA72E11EA46@BridgeNZL3> One of the major advances in the Laws is the revoke law limiting to one trick the OS have taken if they don't win the revoke trick. However, with the Laws focused on equity, I don't really see why one should revert any trick that can not possibly be lost on any play. The obvious case is the contract of 7S missing the Ace!!! Defence is rather flippant as there is not much out in terms of points, so one of the opponents revokes on an early trick, and the only trick they take is subsequently AS - surely this is a loophole that should be closed and even though the revoke occurred the NOS get 100% of the match points for being in a stupid contract and the OS revoking. Look at the impact in Cross-IMP scoring! I know this may lead to questions of what can and can't be lost, but there are many cases of tricks that should not be transferred regardless of the infraction because it just doesn't make sense to give someone an impossible contract. I welcome your guns to shoot me down here :) Martin Oyston From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 6 12:57:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:57:53 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Equity and unlosable tricks Message-ID: <6665232.1252234673460.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz >Date: 06/09/2009 11:21 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: [BLML] Equity and unlosable tricks > >One of the major advances in the Laws is the revoke law limiting to one >trick the OS have taken if they don't win the revoke trick. > >However, with the Laws focused on equity, I don't really see why one should >revert any trick that can not possibly be lost on any play. > >The obvious case is the contract of 7S missing the Ace!!! >Defence is rather flippant as there is not much out in terms of points, so >one of the opponents revokes on an early trick, and the only trick they take >is subsequently AS - surely this is a loophole that should be closed and >even though the revoke occurred the NOS get 100% of the match points for >being in a stupid contract and the OS revoking. Look at the impact in >Cross-IMP scoring! > >I know this may lead to questions of what can and can't be lost, but there >are many cases of tricks that should not be transferred regardless of the >infraction because it just doesn't make sense to give someone an impossible >contract. > >I welcome your guns to shoot me down here :) > >Martin Oyston > +=+ I have no wish to shoot anyone down. It is too late also to introduce any new question to the WBFLC meetings here in S. Paulo. More, the question is an old one, not new. But, as a matter of interest, do you propose there should be no deterrent measure imposed on the perpetrator of the violation of procedure when revoking? We have now had our first laws meeting here in S. Paulo. It would be improper to reveal details before minutes are agreed and published. However, I can say that two subjects discussed at length are uncompleted (i.e. without consensus) and the subjects will be further discussed in our meeting on the coming Tuesday. Grattan +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 6 17:02:50 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:02:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Equity and unlosable tricks In-Reply-To: <077F4791510A41B89BB04CA72E11EA46@BridgeNZL3> References: <077F4791510A41B89BB04CA72E11EA46@BridgeNZL3> Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:21:34 -0400, Martin Oyston wrote: > One of the major advances in the Laws is the revoke law limiting to one > trick the OS have taken if they don't win the revoke trick. > > However, with the Laws focused on equity, I don't really see why one > should > revert any trick that can not possibly be lost on any play. > > The obvious case is the contract of 7S missing the Ace!!! > Defence is rather flippant as there is not much out in terms of points, > so > one of the opponents revokes on an early trick, and the only trick they > take > is subsequently AS - surely this is a loophole that should be closed and > even though the revoke occurred the NOS get 100% of the match points for > being in a stupid contract and the OS revoking. Look at the impact in > Cross-IMP scoring! > > I know this may lead to questions of what can and can't be lost, but > there > are many cases of tricks that should not be transferred regardless of the > infraction because it just doesn't make sense to give someone an > impossible > contract. > > I welcome your guns to shoot me down here :) > > Martin Oyston I would have agreed a week ago. I probably get three revoke calls a day. I am usually a nonplaying director. I have time to do things. But anything that requires copying the hand and figuring out line of play takes a lot of time. Actually, it isn't that easy to get the players to put their hand back in the board without shuffling. So I am not sure what the rule would be. I am in favor of anything to reduce needless penalties for revokes. I don't think we have intentional revokes at our club. But it would be nice if it was easy to implement. From adam at tameware.com Sun Sep 6 19:02:15 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:02:15 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Washington2009.html Here's the first draft of my comments. If you have any comments, corrections, or suggestions please change the Subject: line in your response to include the case number, and start a separate thread for each case. 1. I agree with both rulings, but I think the AC?s reasoning is incomplete. If the damage to N/S was self-inflicted we should still consider adjusting the E/W score per law 12c1b. If the explanation of 2S was irregularity it does seem at all probable that N/S would have had a better result had there been none. Here it looks as though the AC judged that there was no E/W irregularity aside from the failure to pre-alert. In my experience this convention is played so widely at the NABC+ level that everyone is prepared for it and as a consequence few pairs give the required pre-alert. 2. I like the AC ruling. 3. I cannot understand the AC?s reasoning. It seems clear to me that Pass is a logical alternative for any level of East player. The fact that East started with a double that many players would not find only makes his future actions less predictable, thus making it even more difficult to rule out a Pass or Double over 3S. I wish the TD had taken a poll and made it available to the AC. It either would have helped them make a decision I?d like better or it would help them explain their decision to me and to others who read the cases. Looking at things another way, the AC judged that few of West?s peers would double. If ?few? means ?at least one or two? the double was logical and the correct adjustment was to NS +730. 4. I like the screening director and AC rulings. 5. I agree that the appeal had no merit. 6. I agree that the appeal had no merit. The procedural penalty looks appropriate as well. 7. Good work all around. 8. I prefer the TD?s ruling to the AC?s. There are many West hands where 9 nine tricks are the limit for both sides. West?s hesitation makes it a lot more likely that he holds a suitable hand for offence. I'd have liked to see the TD take a poll and make it available to the AC. 9. South claimed that with an 8-4 hand with two losers she rebid 3D in tempo after her partner showed values. Words fail me. I?m glad West did not find the club lead, otherwise we?d never have had a chance to see this case. 10. I agree with the TD and AC rulings. 11. I like the AC decision. 12. Nice work by the AC. 13. I agree with the AC minority. 3d +170 seems likely enough to me to award it to both sides. I also would have liked to see a procedural penalty assessed to EW. That said, the AC did well to identify the UI issue that the TD missed. 14. I like the AC decision. 15. I like the AC decision. I understand the TD?s ruling, but his reasoning troubles me. The normal way to judge whether a BIT was likely is to examine the hand held by the player alleged to have hesitated. East?s club bid may look unusual, but if West passed in tempo then East may do as she pleases. 16. I see no merit to the appeal ? the ruling seems clear as a matter of law. 17. I prefer the AC decision to the TD?s. 18. Good work all around. I could see the ruling going the other way, though. South might have considered why West would say ?two lowest? if what he meant was ?minors?, which is both more explicit and easier to say. 19. Good work by the AC and the screening director. I don?t fault the table TD for his ruling. NS has given misinformation, and initially it seemed it might have led to damage. 20. Kudos to the AC for correcting an injustice. This case seems a good advertisement for player committees. Doug Doub gave me an analogy I like. Suppose the ACBL ran a tournament where opening three level preempts were banned. A player who opened 3S with seven spades to the KQJT and out would have an advantage, even though his opponents were familiar with this treatment and in fact used it themselves on other occasions. E/W got off easy here. I?ve been playing in the ACBL for 30 years. Many times an opponent has told me that his convention had been approved by the TD. When I?ve checked I?ve seldom found that the convention was legal. I would not have accepted E/W?s contention unless they could name a TD to confirm that they'd been told they could use their gadget. I don?t think it should be possible to rule ?TD error? unless we can identify the TD who made the error. 21. I agree that the appeal had merit. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Sep 6 20:53:59 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:53:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2812713AB7F44612B3A69E22B6E1E613@erdos> Another issue in case 15 was not raised; what does the UI suggest? East held 9 AJ8 AT8 AK9852, N/S vul, on the auction: W N E S 1C P 1H 1NT 2C 2S P P 3C 3S ..P Does this hesitation demonstrably suggest 4C over pass? I would say not; given East's singleton spade, West could be considering a double, and if West is considering a double, pass will probably give East at least +200. And the hesitation demonstrably suggests double over 4C, since West can pull a double to 4C if appropriate, and if he leaves the double in, he probably has one trick for +200. Therefore, I would allow 4C by East even if there is UI, and the TD (who found UI) might have done so. The AC determined that there was no break in tempo, and thus had no need to determine what the break suggested. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Sep 6 21:24:39 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 20:24:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 In-Reply-To: <2812713AB7F44612B3A69E22B6E1E613@erdos> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> <2812713AB7F44612B3A69E22B6E1E613@erdos> Message-ID: <2DBC25F6-5AF1-4625-BCEE-57E17422BE08@btinternet.com> On 6 Sep 2009, at 19:53, David Grabiner wrote: > Another issue in case 15 was not raised; what does the UI suggest? > > East held 9 AJ8 AT8 AK9852, N/S vul, on the auction: > > W N E S > 1C P > 1H 1NT 2C 2S > P P 3C 3S > ..P > > Does this hesitation demonstrably suggest 4C over pass? I would > say not; given > East's singleton spade, West could be considering a double, and if > West is > considering a double, pass will probably give East at least +200. > And the > hesitation demonstrably suggests double over 4C, since West can > pull a double to > 4C if appropriate, and if he leaves the double in, he probably has > one trick for > +200. > > Therefore, I would allow 4C by East even if there is UI, and the TD > (who found > UI) might have done so. The AC determined that there was no break > in tempo, and > thus had no need to determine what the break suggested. I'm also struck by the following, which seems to be a self-fulfilling argument: "The director determined that there was a BIT because after bidding clubs three times it would have been difficult to bid clubs yet again in the absence of a BIT." From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Sep 6 21:28:26 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 20:28:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <189E51A4-21A5-4AD0-B6F3-FF516C088D66@btinternet.com> On 6 Sep 2009, at 18:02, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > The normal way to judge whether a BIT was > likely is to examine the hand held by the player alleged to have > hesitated. The normal way to judge whether a BIT occurred is to question the players at the table. It seems unreasonable to determine that a player with perfect tempo has made a BIT simply because of holding a hand that might have given other players tempo problems. From adam at tameware.com Sun Sep 6 22:49:20 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:49:20 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted In-Reply-To: <189E51A4-21A5-4AD0-B6F3-FF516C088D66@btinternet.com> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> <189E51A4-21A5-4AD0-B6F3-FF516C088D66@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40909061349k609280b6x577fd72718619f32@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 6 Sep 2009, at 18:02, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > The normal way to judge whether a BIT was > > likely is to examine the hand held by the player alleged to have > > hesitated. > > The normal way to judge whether a BIT occurred is to question the > players at the table. > > It seems unreasonable to determine that a player with perfect tempo > has made a BIT simply because of holding a hand that might have given > other players tempo problems. Thanks! I will clarify my comment. I meant to say something like "When faced with conflicting testimony, the usual way to judge whether a BIT was likely is to examine the hand held by the player alleged to have hesitated." -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 03:50:16 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 03:50:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] NABC+ case 3 Message-ID: Dealer south, none, MP 1S 2C 2H X 2S P P 3C 3S P P 4C X P 4S X P P P East: T2 AT864 A84 KT5 West BIT before passing 3S. TD ruled: 3S= AC ruled: 4SX-1 (table result) [AC The Decision:] The committee judged that there was a BIT sufficient to provide UI. West had a sixth trump and only a few seconds ago learned his partner had club support, which greatly improved his hand. His claim that he was counting total trumps further suggests that the hesitation was present and not very short. What were the logical alternatives to 4?? After reflection, the committee judged that with three key cards and primary support for a two-level overcall, selling out to 3? was not an option. 3NT was out without a spade stopper. So the choices were to double or bid 4?. We felt that an overwhelming fraction of *West's peers would bid 4?; very few would double; nearly zero would pass. Thus, there are no logical alternatives to 4?. Once pass was determined not to be a logical alternative, the ruling had to be that the table result of 4? doubled by South down one, N/S minus 100 stands for both sides. (* messup in the write-up, surely they mean east) [Adam Wildawsky:] I cannot understand the AC?s reasoning. It seems clear to me that Pass is a logical alternative for any level of East player. The fact that East started with a double that many players would not find only makes his future actions less predictable, thus making it even more difficult to rule out a Pass or Double over 3S. I wish the TD had taken a poll and made it available to the AC. It either would have helped them make a decision I?d like better or it would help them explain their decision to me and to others who read the cases. Looking at things another way, the AC judged that few of West?s peers would double. If ?few? means ?at least one or two? the double was logical and the correct adjustment was to NS +730. [Harald Skj?ran] I disagree with Adam. I don't think pass is a logical alternative. A typical west hand would be xx xx Kxx AQJxxx (this is more like a minimum). And selling out NV at MP seems like bad bridge to me. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 04:39:11 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 04:39:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/9/6 Adam Wildavsky : > 20. Kudos to the AC for correcting an injustice. This case seems a > good advertisement for player committees. > > Doug Doub gave me an analogy I like. Suppose the ACBL ran a tournament > where opening three level preempts were banned. A player who opened 3S > with seven spades to the KQJT and out would have an advantage, even > though his opponents were familiar with this treatment and in fact > used it themselves on other occasions. > > E/W got off easy here. I?ve been playing in the ACBL for 30 years. > Many times an opponent has told me that his convention had been > approved by the TD. When I?ve checked I?ve seldom found that the > convention was legal. I would not have accepted E/W?s contention > unless they could name a TD to confirm that they'd been told they > could use their gadget. I don?t think it should be possible to rule > ?TD error? unless we can identify the TD who made the error. I have no problem (I think) with the two rulings. But I have to say that I find it hilarious (though maybe not sensational) that this convention is not mid-chart legal. (It should really be GCC legal, IMHO.) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Mon Sep 7 04:43:44 2009 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:43:44 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Equity and unlosable tricks In-Reply-To: <6665232.1252234673460.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <3E3F55B2AD8B4638B0B6E48F9E1EB60A@BridgeNZL3> >One of the major advances in the Laws is the revoke law limiting to one >trick the OS have taken if they don't win the revoke trick. > >However, with the Laws focused on equity, I don't really see why one should >revert any trick that can not possibly be lost on any play. > >The obvious case is the contract of 7S missing the Ace!!! >Defence is rather flippant as there is not much out in terms of points, so >one of the opponents revokes on an early trick, and the only trick they take >is subsequently AS - surely this is a loophole that should be closed and >even though the revoke occurred the NOS get 100% of the match points for >being in a stupid contract and the OS revoking. Look at the impact in >Cross-IMP scoring! > >I know this may lead to questions of what can and can't be lost, but there >are many cases of tricks that should not be transferred regardless of the >infraction because it just doesn't make sense to give someone an impossible >contract. > >I welcome your guns to shoot me down here :) > >Martin Oyston > +=+ I have no wish to shoot anyone down. It is too late also to introduce any new question to the WBFLC meetings here in S. Paulo. More, the question is an old one, not new. But, as a matter of interest, do you propose there should be no deterrent measure imposed on the perpetrator of the violation of procedure when revoking? We have now had our first laws meeting here in S. Paulo. It would be improper to reveal details before minutes are agreed and published. However, I can say that two subjects discussed at length are uncompleted (i.e. without consensus) and the subjects will be further discussed in our meeting on the coming Tuesday. Grattan +=+ Thanks for the replies. My suggestion would be just to add, in the same way that a trick prior to the revoke can not be given, "Any trick that can not be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards can not be taken from the OS" This effectively refers to top outstanding trumps. If the K of trumps can be thrown under the Ace, then it is considered a valid trick to be given, but if Ace has already been played then the K must take a trick. I would not see this as a big overhead, I don't propose any "outside Ace that can't be lost" except that the person made the mistake of revoking they could have thrown their Ace on a trump! So we limit the unlosables to top trumps and that makes sense. And as for deterrent? If your side wins the Ace of trumps on the second trick, you can revoke as much as you like and there's no deterrent! You can't have any more taken from you. To say you need a deterrent in this situation means there may be a reason for doing it, and I see none. Martin Oyston From adam at tameware.com Mon Sep 7 05:32:02 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 00:32:02 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases 20 Message-ID: <694eadd40909062032k28f98a8cr80ccaeab94199640@mail.gmail.com> 2009/9/6 Harald Skj?ran > > 2009/9/6 Adam Wildavsky : > > 20. Kudos to the AC for correcting an injustice. This case seems a > > good advertisement for player committees. > > > > Doug Doub gave me an analogy I like. Suppose the ACBL ran a tournament > > where opening three level preempts were banned. A player who opened 3S > > with seven spades to the KQJT and out would have an advantage, even > > though his opponents were familiar with this treatment and in fact > > used it themselves on other occasions. > > > > E/W got off easy here. I?ve been playing in the ACBL for 30 years. > > Many times an opponent has told me that his convention had been > > approved by the TD. When I?ve checked I?ve seldom found that the > > convention was legal. I would not have accepted E/W?s contention > > unless they could name a TD to confirm that they'd been told they > > could use their gadget. I don?t think it should be possible to rule > > ?TD error? unless we can identify the TD who made the error. > > I have no problem (I think) with the two rulings. > > But I have to say that I find it hilarious (though maybe not > sensational) that this convention is not mid-chart legal. (It should > really be GCC legal, IMHO.) Doug and I would have found it easier to prepare for the Bermuda Bowl if we had some experience defending against this convention, the Ekren 2D opening. Eight of the 66 or so pairs in the event were using it, and another eight were using an Ekren 2H opening. That said, in the end Doug and I didn't have any trouble with it. Our teammates did, though. They knew their methods, almost, but encountered an auction they hadn't discussed and ended up playing a hopeless slam with six trumps instead of a cold one with nine trumps. It was especially costly since the pair at the other table played in game. AW From blml at arcor.de Mon Sep 7 08:17:05 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:17:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] NABC+ case 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16861322.1252304225350.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Dealer south, none, MP > > 1S > 2C 2H X 2S > P P 3C 3S > P P 4C X > P 4S X P > P P > > East: T2 AT864 A84 KT5 > > West BIT before passing 3S. > TD ruled: 3S= > AC ruled: 4SX-1 (table result) > > [AC The Decision:] > The committee judged that there was a BIT sufficient to provide UI. > West had a sixth trump and only a few seconds ago learned his partner > had club support, which greatly improved his hand. His claim that he > was counting total trumps further suggests that the hesitation was > present and not very short. > What were the logical alternatives to 4?? After reflection, the > committee judged that with three key cards and primary support for a > two-level overcall, selling out to 3? was not an option. 3NT was out > without a spade stopper. So the choices were to double or bid 4?. We > felt that an overwhelming fraction of *West's peers would bid 4?; very > few would double; nearly zero would pass. Thus, there are no logical > alternatives to 4?. > Once pass was determined not to be a logical alternative, the ruling > had to be that the table result of 4? doubled by South down one, N/S > minus 100 stands for both sides. > (* messup in the write-up, surely they mean east) > > [Adam Wildawsky:] > I cannot understand the AC?s reasoning. It seems clear to me > that Pass is a logical alternative for any level of East player. The > fact that East started with a double that many players would not find > only makes his future actions less predictable, thus making it even > more difficult to rule out a Pass or Double over 3S. I wish the TD had > taken a poll and made it available to the AC. It either would have > helped them make a decision I?d like better or it would help them > explain their decision to me and to others who read the cases. Looking > at things another way, the AC judged that few of West?s peers would > double. If ?few? means ?at least one or two? the double was logical > and the correct adjustment was to NS +730. > > [Harald Skj?ran] > I disagree with Adam. I don't think pass is a logical alternative. A > typical west hand would be xx xx Kxx AQJxxx (this is more like a > minimum). And selling out NV at MP seems like bad bridge to me. MPs all white, the possible bids are 4C, X, and pass, in that order. 4C is wrong if both 3S and 4C go down, and even then it usually does not cost much. 3S going down two seems unlikely, as partner did not double 3S. The hesitation does not suggest 4C over double. Still, I think that quite a few players would at least consider passing, and some would pass. Passing out 3S is bad bridge, but if enough players make a mistake, the mistake is an LA, isn't it? Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 7 10:21:36 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:21:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA4C290.2010403@ulb.ac.be> Gordon Bower a ?crit : > >>>>>>> A5 >>>>>>> KJT73 >>>>>>> AKT >>>>>>> AJ2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What bizarre call do you make? >>>>>>> > > Partner says he has six playing tricks. I have four (SA, DA, DK, CA), and an expectation that finesses in the round suits are likely to lose. The raise to 4S is obvious. Anything ELSE, like trying for slam, would be bizarre. Notice that partner may hold a singleton club and a heart honor and that we have some steps available to check (e.g. a Rubenian 3D followed by 4S). Does it cost anything ? Also, notice that we're not compelled to believe opener. If some want to blast 6NT and some declare that anything else than 4S would be heretic, perhaps the truth lies somewhere in-between, like asking partner whather his bid was just tricks, or also strangth ? Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 15:20:22 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 15:20:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases 20 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40909062032k28f98a8cr80ccaeab94199640@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40909062032k28f98a8cr80ccaeab94199640@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/9/7 Adam Wildavsky : > 2009/9/6 Harald Skj?ran >> >> 2009/9/6 Adam Wildavsky : >> > 20. Kudos to the AC for correcting an injustice. This case seems a >> > good advertisement for player committees. >> > >> > Doug Doub gave me an analogy I like. Suppose the ACBL ran a tournament >> > where opening three level preempts were banned. A player who opened 3S >> > with seven spades to the KQJT and out would have an advantage, even >> > though his opponents were familiar with this treatment and in fact >> > used it themselves on other occasions. >> > >> > E/W got off easy here. I?ve been playing in the ACBL for 30 years. >> > Many times an opponent has told me that his convention had been >> > approved by the TD. When I?ve checked I?ve seldom found that the >> > convention was legal. I would not have accepted E/W?s contention >> > unless they could name a TD to confirm that they'd been told they >> > could use their gadget. I don?t think it should be possible to rule >> > ?TD error? unless we can identify the TD who made the error. >> >> I have no problem (I think) with the two rulings. >> >> But I have to say that I find it hilarious (though maybe not >> sensational) that this convention is not mid-chart legal. (It should >> really be GCC legal, IMHO.) > > Doug and I would have found it easier to prepare for the Bermuda Bowl > if we had some experience defending against this convention, the Ekren > 2D opening. Eight of the 66 or so pairs in the event were using it, > and another eight were using an Ekren 2H opening. > > That said, in the end Doug and I didn't have any trouble with it. Our > teammates did, though. They knew their methods, almost, but > encountered an auction they hadn't discussed and ended up playing a > hopeless slam with six trumps instead of a cold one with nine trumps. > It was especially costly since the pair at the other table played in > game. Yes, that's one reason why you shouldn't have all the system/convention restrictions you have in the ACBL. When your players play international championships or in other tournaments abroad, they are at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the field, who are familiar with a lot more methods. And I also believe that these restrictions is a drawback when it comes to keeping more of the young players, who might find it dull to be so restricted. Although, that's maybe so much the case these days, when they can play whatever they want on the internet. > AW > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 7 19:31:41 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:31:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Equity and unlosable tricks In-Reply-To: <077F4791510A41B89BB04CA72E11EA46@BridgeNZL3> References: <077F4791510A41B89BB04CA72E11EA46@BridgeNZL3> Message-ID: [Martin Oyston] One of the major advances in the Laws is the revoke law limiting to one trick the OS have taken if they don't win the revoke trick. However, with the Laws focused on equity, I don't really see why one should revert any trick that can not possibly be lost on any play. The obvious case is the contract of 7S missing the Ace!!! Defence is rather flippant as there is not much out in terms of points, so one of the opponents revokes on an early trick, and the only trick they take is subsequently AS - surely this is a loophole that should be closed and even though the revoke occurred the NOS get 100% of the match points for being in a stupid contract and the OS revoking. Look at the impact in Cross-IMP scoring! I know this may lead to questions of what can and can't be lost, but there are many cases of tricks that should not be transferred regardless of the infraction because it just doesn't make sense to give someone an impossible contract. I welcome your guns to shoot me down here :) [Nige1] No guns but a despairing protest from an ordinary player caught in "friendly"??? fire: In games, as in the world at large, people tend to flout laws when their infraction shows a net profit. Bridge law-breakers have always done well because not all infractions are detected, reported, or attract an adverse ruling. Martin (along with law-makers and most directors) applaud a trend in Bridge law that further encourages law-breaking. Restoration of the status quo is not much deterrent to a potential law-breaker. The complementary loss of redress may deter their victim from going through the hassle of a director call. Revoke law is a good example. Many revokes are unintentional (and, IMO, lawmakers should avoid concerning themselves with "intention" as much as they reasonably can). Sometimes, however, you know that a revoke is your only chance to make a critical contract. Now, as the law stands, it costs you little to revoke. You may even rationalise your action by "ignorance of the law", or "carelessness", or "because everybody else does it" (cf expense fiddling or traffic violations in the macrocosm). With luck, against players out of contention, it may not be noticed or reported. Consistently, (but to Richard Hill's and my annoyance) the law also seems to say that, if you notice what you've revoked, you may cover it up (short of another revoke). Unless the revoke is noticed in time, the law-breaker's profit is great. The risk is tiny because the penalty is derisory. BTW, "Procedural" and "Disciplinary" penalties will continue to be red-herring until many more fish are caught in that net. A better revoke law might mandate the loss of the revoke trick and all subsequent tricks (with possible additional procedural penalties); IMO, most players would welome such a simple and fair law. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Sep 7 22:56:06 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:56:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Equity and unlosable tricks In-Reply-To: <077F4791510A41B89BB04CA72E11EA46@BridgeNZL3> References: <077F4791510A41B89BB04CA72E11EA46@BridgeNZL3> Message-ID: <4AA57366.7040504@nhcc.net> Martin Oyston wrote: > One of the major advances in the Laws is the revoke law limiting to one > trick the OS have taken if they don't win the revoke trick. Some of us don't see this as an advance. > However, with the Laws focused on equity, I don't really see why one should > revert any trick that can not possibly be lost on any play. This isn't a question where there's a "right answer" (nor a wrong one). It's a matter of taste what makes for a more enjoyable game. My personal preference is for the old two-trick penalty -- if people can't bother to pay attention and not revoke, they shouldn't score well. But I realize that other people such as yourself have different opinions. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Sep 7 23:02:49 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:02:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 In-Reply-To: <2DBC25F6-5AF1-4625-BCEE-57E17422BE08@btinternet.com> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> <2812713AB7F44612B3A69E22B6E1E613@erdos> <2DBC25F6-5AF1-4625-BCEE-57E17422BE08@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4AA574F9.2080600@nhcc.net> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > I'm also struck by the following, which seems to be a self-fulfilling > argument: "The director determined that there was a BIT because after > bidding clubs three times it would have been difficult to bid clubs > yet again in the absence of a BIT." What flaw do you find with the argument? If we're told that a player with a flat zero-count has bid, it isn't a great stretch to imagine that his partner has made a strong, forcing opening. Of course there could be another explanation, but the bid is certainly evidence to use. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Sep 7 22:22:02 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:22:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Equity and unlosable tricks In-Reply-To: References: <077F4791510A41B89BB04CA72E11EA46@BridgeNZL3> Message-ID: <782ADEA60D0841C3AB0C3AA4E4840193@erdos> "Nigel Guthrie" > In games, as in the world at large, people tend to flout laws when their > infraction shows a net profit. > > Bridge law-breakers have always done well because not all infractions are > detected, reported, or attract an adverse ruling. Martin (along with > law-makers and most directors) applaud a trend in Bridge law that further > encourages law-breaking. Restoration of the status quo is not much deterrent > to a potential law-breaker. The complementary loss of redress may deter > their victim from going through the hassle of a director call. > > Revoke law is a good example. Many revokes are unintentional (and, IMO, > lawmakers should avoid concerning themselves with "intention" as much as > they reasonably can). Sometimes, however, you know that a revoke is your > only chance to make a critical contract. Now, as the law stands, it costs > you little to revoke. You may even rationalise your action by "ignorance of > the law", or "carelessness", or "because everybody else does it" (cf expense > fiddling or traffic violations in the macrocosm). With luck, against players > out of contention, it may not be noticed or reported. I don't think this happens much with revokes, because everyone knows the revoke laws, and revokes tend to get caught (often by partner if you are on defense). In addition, the revoke penalty is often more serious than the gain from the revoke, even under the current laws, which provides some deterrent effect. However, many other infractions are intentional. Players who should know better violate the UI rules, often against players who do not know they have been damaged, or when a TD disagrees with the finding of damage or misapplies the rules. And they don't expect the penalty to be more severe than the result of following the rules (although it can happen; I once called the TD on a hesitation Blackwood auction, and the TD would have ruled the contract back to 5H, but 6H went down and that result stood). > BTW, "Procedural" and "Disciplinary" penalties will continue to be > red-herring until many more fish are caught in that net. And I agree with this. A few months ago, I posted a comment on Houston non-NABC Case 2, which illustrates the need for such penalties: South had opened 1C, East wound up on lead against 6S, and West asked, "Is 1C Precision?" before East put his lead face down. East then led a club to beat the slam. E-W had two chances to win: N-S might not call the TD (although there was a substantial chance they would for an infraction like this), or East might be able to demonstrate that the club lead was justified. Therefore, for a deterrent effect to exist, the TD must have been likely to impose a procedural penalty, so that E-W stood to lose 6 IMPs for their behavior in addition to the -1010 adjusted score. (The AC didn't impose one either, but it would have been moot because this was a KO match and E-W had already lost it.) The case for this PP is that West should have known better. This was the top bracket of a Compact KO, and the eleventh board, so West should know what system N-S are playing, and should know that the way to get a club lead against 6S is to double 6S. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Sep 7 23:05:43 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:05:43 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <786C55FB49DF4822BEFCDC3D01444411@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Adam Wildavsky" >1. I agree with both rulings, but I think the AC?s reasoning is incomplete. If the damage to N/S was self-inflicted we should still consider adjusting the E/W score per law 12c1b. and consider adjusting the N-S score. ACBL TDs do not accept L12C1(b). They continue to rule no damage and "table result stands" when the damage is self-inflicted. This despite the much-plainer L12B1 language: "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." > If the explanation of 2S was an irregularity it does seem at all probable that N/S would have had a better result had there been none. Here it looks as though the AC judged that there was no E/W irregularity aside from the failure to pre-alert. Not just the failure to pre-alert. >In my experience this convention is played so widely at the NABC+ level that everyone is prepared for it and as a consequence few pairs give the required pre-alert. That is no excuse for violating ACBL regulations, and not everyone is prepared for it. A pre-Alert gives opponents the opportunity to discuss their defense to the method, perhaps while examining the required descripion of it*, but this E-W pair didn't like either idea. * E-W were supposed to have a written description of the 2D convention available for the opponents. No, not an ACBL-approved defense, I didn't say that. Just a written description, as required by the ACBL Mid-Chart. Why can't players in an NABC+ event follow ACBL regulations? Too much to expect, I suppose, when even TDs and LC members aren't familiar with them. E-W were correct, the 2S bid is not just "pass or correct." It is a heart raise, which makes it Alertable and explainable. A 2H bid would be obviously pass-or-correct, not Alertable. "East had explained after some thought that West must have heart tolerance." Yes, it takes some thought to come up with something vague enough to keep the opponents mystified. The ethical explanation is: "It says nothing about spades; it shows values to support a three-level or higher heart contract if my suit is hearts, but a desire to stop if my suit is spades." That is the system they play, and that is what should be disclosed. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From adam at tameware.com Mon Sep 7 23:28:34 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:28:34 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 In-Reply-To: <786C55FB49DF4822BEFCDC3D01444411@MARVLAPTOP> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> <786C55FB49DF4822BEFCDC3D01444411@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <694eadd40909071428g2b8e883ah658725873ffff773@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > > * E-W were supposed to have a written description of the 2D > convention available for the opponents. No, not an ACBL-approved > defense, I didn't say that. Just a written description, as required > by the ACBL Mid-Chart. Indeed they were, but I've never yet met a pair who provided one. What would it have said? "2D shows either hearts or spades, but not both." I think NS understood that part well. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 23:35:46 2009 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:35:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 In-Reply-To: <786C55FB49DF4822BEFCDC3D01444411@MARVLAPTOP> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> <786C55FB49DF4822BEFCDC3D01444411@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0909071435r62db7efcua37fef5d63838e72@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > E-W were correct, the ?2S ?bid is not just "pass or correct." It is > a heart raise, which makes it Alertable and explainable. A 2H bid > would be obviously pass-or-correct, not Alertable. "East had > explained after some thought that West must have heart tolerance." > Yes, it takes some thought to come up with something vague enough to > keep the opponents mystified. The ethical explanation is: "It says > nothing about spades; it shows values to support a three-level or > higher heart contract if my suit is hearts, but a desire to stop if > my suit is spades." That is the system they play, and that is what > should be disclosed. If I am reading things correctly, the incident in question occurred in the Flight A GNTs. Just how much hand holding do these folks require? Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand the inferences from bidding 2S rather than 2H. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 8 02:03:37 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 01:03:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0909071435r62db7efcua37fef5d63838e72@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com><786C55FB49DF4822BEFCDC3D01444411@MARVLAPTOP> <2da24b8e0909071435r62db7efcua37fef5d63838e72@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6702BB01F2584B4FB928B189570E0565@NigelPC> [Marvin L French] "East had explained after some thought that West must have heart tolerance." Yes, it takes some thought to come up with something vague enough to keep the opponents mystified. [Richard Willey] If I am reading things correctly, the incident in question occurred in the Flight A GNTs. Just how much hand holding do these folks require? Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand the inferences from bidding 2S rather than 2H. [Nige1] The law should explicitly rebudiate Richard's point of view. The director should turn it on its head and point out that - - An accurate description is more succinct than the woolly prevarication. - And is a no-brainer for asker and explainer alike. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 8 04:34:51 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:34:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Norm & Al [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >Or, it is twisting words beyond their dictionary definition, but >perhaps if a regularity occurs that has an identifiable >rectification, then "normal play" occurs when the rectification is >followed, no matter how bizarre the player's actions might then >become. > >The basic problem is this. A player opens the bidding 1C and his >partner's turn to bid. The rule is that his partner is now barred >from the auction. That pretty much prevents normal play of the >board. How can we justify not applying L12A2? Other than common >sense, which hasn't gotten me nowhere. > >(The presenting problem was double UI when the player said his >partner's explanation wasn't correct.) > >Or maybe a lot of directors would apply L12A2 in this situation. Richard Hills: Many years ago, the then Chief Director of Australia (now retired) was faced with this "abnormal" situation. The opening leader had not placed merely one card face up, but all thirteen cards were led face up, because she was under a misapprehension that she was dummy. After checking that opening leader's misapprehension had not been caused by misinformation from the declaring side, the Chief Director applied Law 12A2; Ave+ to the declaring side and Ave- to the defending side. More recently, that former Chief Director has had second thoughts, and now believes that his ruling was incorrect. I agree with those second thoughts that the situation was not "abnormal" - Law 12A2 - but rather "normal but unusual", since Law 51 specifically deals with two or more penalty cards. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills Grattan Endicott, 8th January 2005: +=+ 6 or 13 [penalty cards] I think you should apply the correct Law. There is nothing stopping a result being obtained, so how do you get to [the 1997 Law] 12C1? ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills, 9th January 2005: This deal occurred in a walk-in pairs at the Unicorn's Club: Dlr: West Rueful Rabbit Vul: N-S --- AKQJT98765432 --- --- Timothy the Toucan Walter the Walrus KQJT8642 A --- --- AKQJ9 864 --- AKQJT8642 The Hideous Hog 9753 --- T7532 9753 Timothy opened 6S, the Rabbit overcalled 7H, and Walter wanted to bid 8S, but settled for the underbid of 7S. At this point the Toucan, bouncing up and down in his chair with excitement, exchanged hands with his partner so they could admire this unusual auction and contract. Correction, assumed contract. At this point the Hog called the TD, requesting a ruling under Law 24. The TD ruled that 26 cards had been exposed during the auction. The Hog then bid 7NT. With 26 penalty cards, the Hog was able to make his NT grand slam on zero points (and with no access to dummy) via cunning unblocking. How H.H. played triple-dummy I will leave as an exercise for the reader. Grattan Endicott, 10th January 2005: +=+ And a result was obtained. 12C1 [now the 2007 Law 12C2(a)] does not apply. The Director who tries to use it should pay attention to Law 81 - in particular 81B2. +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Sep 8 08:27:53 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:27:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <786C55FB49DF4822BEFCDC3D01444411@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures": Is there anything in conventional English which could equal the vividness of "To craunch a marmoset"? Law 40B5: "When a side is damaged by an opponent's use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty." Adam Wildavsky petitio principii: [snip] >>>In my experience this convention is played so widely at the >>>NABC+ level that everyone is prepared for it and as a >>>consequence few pairs give the required pre-alert. Richard Hills quibbles: Which suggests, under Law 40B5, that few pairs are legally playing the convention. So in this particular case the TD and AC could have ruled "illegal convention" (not merely MI), and adjusted the score to what North-South would have achieved if East had chosen a non-conventional natural 2H overcall. Adam Wildavsky quoted a second time: [snip] >>>In my experience this convention is played so widely at the >>>NABC+ level that everyone is prepared for it and as a >>>consequence few pairs give the required pre-alert. Richard Hills quibbles: Plus obviously the non-offending North-South were not prepared for this convention, so N-S were not part of "everyone". So if alternatively the TD and AC instead chose to rule merely MI (not "illegal convention"), and adjusted the score on the basis that the pre-Alert was given in a timely fashion, N-S would have had the chance to prepare a sensible defence which might have allowed them an "at all probable" chance to reach the N-S spade game. Can failure to prepare a defence to a convention you do not know exists be a Law 12C1(b) "wild or gambling action"? Richard Willey petitio principii: >>If I am reading things correctly, the incident in question >>occurred in the Flight A GNTs. >> >>Just how much hand holding do these folks require? Richard Hills quibbles: Lots. Due to the Weimar Republic inflation of ACBL master- points, I would give this variant on Marv's explanation of 2S to any ACBL Flight A player: "2S shows two or fewer cards in spades and three or more cards in hearts. Partner is requesting me to pass if my suit is spades, or correct to 3H if my suit is hearts. Pard lacks the strength to make a artificial invitation to game via 2NT." Richard Willey petitio principii: >>Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand the >>inferences from bidding 2S rather than 2H. Richard Hills quibbles: Where do you draw the line? Should anyone with half a brain understand the inferences from my Symmetric Relay system (notes emailed on request)? Law 40B6(a), final segment: "..... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Richard Hills quibbles: I admit that Richard Willey is one of the few ACBLers who would easily understand Symmetric Relay inferences. Richard's former partner attests to his excellence in bidding system design. But I would argue that Richard is blinded by his own expertise (as also were the actual TD and AC), thereby finding it very difficult to walk in the moccasins of lesser bridge players who are still playing by rote, not yet by ratiocination. Nigel Guthrie on disclosure: >The law should explicitly repudiate Richard's point of view. >The director should turn it on its head and point out that - >- An accurate description is more succinct than the woolly >prevarication. >- And is a no-brainer for asker and explainer alike. Law 40B6(a), middle segment, on disclosure: ".....disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience.....". Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 8 09:32:20 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:32:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA60884.7090403@ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, I still have some problems with disclosure laws and ethics. This is based on a live case, only slightly adjusted for the sake of purity. Once in a while, there will be no difference between schools, so I can expect calm waters. partner you 1C 1H 1S p 2D 1S (duly alerted) shows 4+ diamonds (double would show 4+ spades) 2D is a constructive raise (3D being preemptive, and weak balanced hands being opened 1NT) Notice that if 1S showed 5+ spades (and double exactly 4), a very common treatment in my country, it would still have been alertable. Here are four statements, each of which has been acknowledged by (independently consulted) TDs. a. They asked about 1S. Partner said "4+ diamonds, often 5, denies 4 spades unless reversing values", which is a complete descirption. Now they ask about 2D, you answer "positive raise, occasionally 3 cards in a strong NT type", which is a complete description. You've done everything you had to do. b. They didn't ask about 1S, but looked at the appropriate place on your card, and you're confident that they know what they have to know about 1S. Since checking the SC is equivalent to asking, they're allowed to ask about 2D, and for the same reason you adopt the same attitude as in a. You carefully avoid saying "positive raise *in diamonds*", lest this be taken as a reminder to partner about the meaning of your own bid (maybe he just alerted because he thought it showed 5+ spades). Since they eventually got full disclosure of your agreements, this is irreproachable. c. They didn't ask at all nor check the SC about 1S (they think you play it as 5+ as everyone does), but they ask about 2D. Perhaps this isn't 100% kosher, but you still have to answer. Now you have to say "positive raise *in diamonds*", and too bad if it transmits UI and it costs you at the end. If you didn't, they might believe it is a positive raise in spades (why not ?), and for example RHO (that is, partner's LHO) might pass and discover too late that it wans't forcing. d. Explanations should transmit all relevant information about your system, avoiding any mannerism (e.g. always state the elements of a Multi-bid in the same order). *They shouldn't vary *according to events at the table (e.g. you'd still explain Multi after the ensuing bididng has shown it was strong, because this has an impact on your esponse). Forget about a, we'll all agree. But items b-c-d create a contradiction. Which one is wrong ? The corrct answer probably is that there should be two levels of alert, and if they don't ask about a "double-alerted" bid too bad for them, but it isn't part of TFLB yet. Or that in c. you'd say "please ask about 1S first, you'll need it". I like this, I've occasionally done so, but it isn't kosher either. Best regards Alain From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Sep 8 09:59:25 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:59:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 In-Reply-To: <4AA574F9.2080600@nhcc.net> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> <2812713AB7F44612B3A69E22B6E1E613@erdos> <2DBC25F6-5AF1-4625-BCEE-57E17422BE08@btinternet.com> <4AA574F9.2080600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On 7 Sep 2009, at 22:02, Steve Willner wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> I'm also struck by the following, which seems to be a self-fulfilling >> argument: "The director determined that there was a BIT because after >> bidding clubs three times it would have been difficult to bid clubs >> yet again in the absence of a BIT." > > What flaw do you find with the argument? Well, I've seen plenty of players who won't stop bidding their own suit, without any assistance from their partners' tempo breaks. We're supposed to establish whether there was a BIT, if so whether it demonstrably suggests the chosen action, and whether there was a logical alternative to that action. What has happened above is to do things in reverse. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 8 10:57:44 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:57:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> <2812713AB7F44612B3A69E22B6E1E613@erdos> <2DBC25F6-5AF1-4625-BCEE-57E17422BE08@btinternet.com> <4AA574F9.2080600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4AA61C88.3020100@ulb.ac.be> Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > On 7 Sep 2009, at 22:02, Steve Willner wrote: > > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>> I'm also struck by the following, which seems to be a self-fulfilling >>> argument: "The director determined that there was a BIT because after >>> bidding clubs three times it would have been difficult to bid clubs >>> yet again in the absence of a BIT." >>> >> What flaw do you find with the argument? >> > > Well, I've seen plenty of players who won't stop bidding their own > suit, without any assistance from their partners' tempo breaks. > > We're supposed to establish whether there was a BIT, if so whether it > demonstrably suggests the chosen action, and whether there was a > logical alternative to that action. What has happened above is to do > things in reverse. > AG : it's worse than that. The argument can be synthetized as : "clubs were bid, therefore there was a tempo, and therefore clubs might not be bid", something about which Mrs. Russell and Epimenides would have something to say. From henk at ripe.net Tue Sep 8 13:05:15 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:05:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for August 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 76 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 45 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 36 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 26 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 23 ehaa (at) starpower.net 17 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 14 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 13 blml (at) arcor.de 10 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 9 adam (at) irvine.com 8 swillner (at) nhcc.net 7 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 7 adam (at) tameware.com 7 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 6 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 5 svenpran (at) online.no 5 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 3 tedying (at) yahoo.com 3 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 3 gampas (at) aol.com 3 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 2 karel (at) esatclear.ie 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 2 blml (at) bridgescore.de 2 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 2 Gampas (at) aol.com 1 wmevius (at) hotmail.com 1 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com 1 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 1 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 1 lapinjatka (at) jldata.fi 1 geller (at) nifty.com 1 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 8 13:12:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:12:06 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <10059980.1252408326342.JavaMail.root@ps30> >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 08/09/2009 7:27 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures": > >Is there anything in conventional English which could equal the >vividness of "To craunch a marmoset"? > >Law 40B5: > >"When a side is damaged by an opponent's use of a special >partnership understanding that does not comply with the >regulations governing the tournament the score shall be >adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject >to a procedural penalty." > >Adam Wildavsky petitio principii: > >[snip] > >>>>In my experience this convention is played so widely at the >>>>NABC+ level that everyone is prepared for it and as a >>>>consequence few pairs give the required pre-alert. > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Which suggests, under Law 40B5, that few pairs are legally >playing the convention. So in this particular case the TD and >AC could have ruled "illegal convention" (not merely MI), and >adjusted the score to what North-South would have achieved if >East had chosen a non-conventional natural 2H overcall. > >Adam Wildavsky quoted a second time: > >[snip] > >>>>In my experience this convention is played so widely at the >>>>NABC+ level that everyone is prepared for it and as a >>>>consequence few pairs give the required pre-alert. > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Plus obviously the non-offending North-South were not prepared >for this convention, so N-S were not part of "everyone". So if >alternatively the TD and AC instead chose to rule merely MI >(not "illegal convention"), and adjusted the score on the basis >that the pre-Alert was given in a timely fashion, N-S would >have had the chance to prepare a sensible defence which might >have allowed them an "at all probable" chance to reach the N-S >spade game. > >Can failure to prepare a defence to a convention you do not >know exists be a Law 12C1(b) "wild or gambling action"? > >Richard Willey petitio principii: > >>>If I am reading things correctly, the incident in question >>>occurred in the Flight A GNTs. >>> >>>Just how much hand holding do these folks require? > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Lots. Due to the Weimar Republic inflation of ACBL master- >points, I would give this variant on Marv's explanation of 2S >to any ACBL Flight A player: > >"2S shows two or fewer cards in spades and three or more >cards in hearts. Partner is requesting me to pass if my suit >is spades, or correct to 3H if my suit is hearts. Pard lacks >the strength to make a artificial invitation to game via 2NT." > >Richard Willey petitio principii: > >>>Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand the >>>inferences from bidding 2S rather than 2H. > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Where do you draw the line? Should anyone with half a brain >understand the inferences from my Symmetric Relay system (notes >emailed on request)? > >Law 40B6(a), final segment: > >"..... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his >knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge >players." > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >I admit that Richard Willey is one of the few ACBLers who would >easily understand Symmetric Relay inferences. Richard's former >partner attests to his excellence in bidding system design. > >But I would argue that Richard is blinded by his own expertise >(as also were the actual TD and AC), thereby finding it very >difficult to walk in the moccasins of lesser bridge players who >are still playing by rote, not yet by ratiocination. > >Nigel Guthrie on disclosure: > >>The law should explicitly repudiate Richard's point of view. >>The director should turn it on its head and point out that - >>- An accurate description is more succinct than the woolly >>prevarication. >>- And is a no-brainer for asker and explainer alike. > >Law 40B6(a), middle segment, on disclosure: > >".....disclose all special information conveyed to him through >partnership agreement or partnership experience.....". > +=+ Well, at least Richard has read the law book. In a field where most players have a common understanding of the method, others who do not should be protected if the method is not known to bridge pkayers generally. Grattan +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 8 14:40:44 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:40:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <10059980.1252408326342.JavaMail.root@ps30> References: <10059980.1252408326342.JavaMail.root@ps30> Message-ID: <85E6DDC68B8140609F2983819886CE62@NigelPC> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Well, at least Richard has read the law book. In a field where most players have a common understanding of the method, others who do not should be protected if the method is not known to bridge pkayers generally. [Nige1] Grattan hits the nail on the head: "I assume the meaning is part of a player's *General Knowledge* at this level" is a common excuse for the kind hesitant and rambling prevarication, discussed in this post. We are told that the regulations classify this method as alertable (or pre-alertable or whatever). In these circumstances, I feel that the law should clearly ban "General Knowledge" excuses for non-disclosure. Better still, law-makers should save paper by ... - Removing references to "General Knowledge" from the law-book. :) Law-makers could also consider dropping other pointless and unnecessary stuff. For instance, removing the legal necessity of "protecting yourself" from an opponent's possible disclosure infraction. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 8 15:17:49 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:17:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <85E6DDC68B8140609F2983819886CE62@NigelPC> References: <10059980.1252408326342.JavaMail.root@ps30> <85E6DDC68B8140609F2983819886CE62@NigelPC> Message-ID: <4AA6597D.5000304@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > Better still, law-makers should save paper by ... > - Removing references to "General Knowledge" from the law-book. :) > In which case we'll have alert our partner's 1D overcall of 1C because we have the inference that he doesn't hold a 6+ card major. Of course, GBK shouldn't go beyond obvious cases like this, but omitting it altogether would : a) lose time b) make every bridge player feel like every other bridge player considers him the worst of morons c) make alerts totally inefficient, because everything will be alerted A bit too heavy a price to avoid a dozen insincere appeals, something against which we have other tools at our disposal. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 8 15:38:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:38:58 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <19905121.1252417138550.JavaMail.root@ps30> >----Original Message---- >From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk >Date: 08/09/2009 13:40 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >[Grattan Endicott] >+=+ Well, at least Richard has read the law book. In a field where most >players have a common understanding of the method, others who do not should >be protected if the method is not known to bridge pkayers generally. > >[Nige1] >Grattan hits the nail on the head: > >"I assume the meaning is part of a player's *General Knowledge* at this >level" > +=+ There is, of course, a difference between a player's "general bridge knowledge" and what is "known to bridge players generally". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 8 20:05:09 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 19:05:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Other game anologies Message-ID: When arguing about the Laws of Bridge, we sometimes compare them with Rules for other games. Such analogies are often a bit stretched because Bridge is complex, sedentary, and relies heavily on partnership communication. IMO, another problem with such comparisons is that games like Cricket and Soccer are big business spectator sports. Their rules and mores encourage cheating. For example, foot-ball players habitually hold each other, kick each other, take dives, etc. The ideal player is a drama school graduate with a black-belt in kick-boxing. When a referee takes his remit literally, commentators angrily criticize him for being unnecessarily harsh and stopping the flow of the game. "Advantage rules" and so on facilitate lax policing. In theory, it might be possible to change the rules to make the game fairer; for example, if the penalty for a potentially match-winning foul was a number of goals. But, in practice, this would ruin the game for spectators. - Supporters of the winners are ecstatic with triumph -- full of praise and admiration for their "hard men" (aka cheats). - Losing team supporters are equally excited, angrily protesting (with considerable justification) that the "referee wore blinkers" and that "we wiz robbed." Were the game fairer, it would foment less emotion and lose spectator appeal. In contrast, people spend more time *playing* the game of Bridge than *watching*. Hence, IMO, law-makers can be less assiduous in encouraging infractions. Instead, I feel that the law-makers should simplify the rules enough for players to be able to understand them and comply with them. They should also introduce *deterrent* *penalties* for infractions. Unfortunately, this would make directing more of a hassle, because law-breakers, accustomed to impunity, would sometimes resent rulings. Gradually. however, more players would start to conform to the rules. For law-abiding players, the game would become more challenging and enjoyable. IMO, law-makers should consider the interests of players as well as directors and administrators. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 8 21:48:21 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:48:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AA6597D.5000304@ulb.ac.be> References: <10059980.1252408326342.JavaMail.root@ps30><85E6DDC68B8140609F2983819886CE62@NigelPC> <4AA6597D.5000304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <85FF97371D45423BBA0A78AFB1FF544D@NigelPC> [Nigel] Better still, law-makers should save paper by removing references to "General Knowledge" from the law-book. :) [Alain Gottcheiner] In which case we'll have alert our partner's 1D overcall of 1C because we have the inference that he doesn't hold a 6+ card major. [Nigel] Normally, he wouldn't hold 6 hipogriffs either :) A bit academic in the UK, where regulations *forbid* us to alert when a bid's meaning is defined as non-alertable :). From tedying at yahoo.com Tue Sep 8 21:57:42 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases 20 In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40909062032k28f98a8cr80ccaeab94199640@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <662977.72668.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Although I myself understand this logic, I do not think it applies to the bulk of the ACBL. I personally think that having multiple convention charts (GCC, Mid-Chart, Super-Chart) is quite appropriate, but that the ACBL needs to be a little more liberal in the application. Of the 160-180K players in the ACBL, I would guess that you have less than say 500 that play at the international level and probably less than 10,000 that play at the top-ranked national level. For the vast majority, well over 100K, they only play at the local level in clubs and many of them play at a beginning level. Years ago, I used to travel for my job and I would sometimes play at a local club with a pickup partner. I found many players at the club level around the country played at a non-life master level and really did not have that much experience. For them to have to play against a wide variety of disparate and sometimes difficult to defend against systems or systems which they'll never encounter except for one or two odd pairs, is not fair and would serve no purporse. Most of these players will play very few tournaments beyond a local sectional. I just checked the ACBL site and there are just under 162K ACBL players. less than 7K hold 2500+ masterpoints. Only 26.5K hold 1000+ masterpoints. and only 67K have 300+ masterpoints. That means that there are nearly 100K ACBL players that are non-life masters. That said, I think that all regional events with an upper limit of 1000 masterpoints or higher should use the mid-chart and that all regional or higher ranked events with an upper masterpoint limit of 5000 or higher should use the Superchart. This would mean that those that compete at the highest levels do have that experience playing against these systems commonly used internationally, but that the common club players or local players at Sectionals wouldn't have to play against such a variety of systems for their level. -Ted Ying. ________________________________ From: Harald Skj?ran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 9:20:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases 20 Yes, that's one reason why you shouldn't have all the system/convention restrictions you have in the ACBL. When your players play international championships or in other tournaments abroad, they are at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the field, who are familiar with a lot more methods. And I also believe that these restrictions is a drawback when it comes to keeping more of the young players, who might find it dull to be so restricted. Although, that's maybe so much the case these days, when they can play whatever they want on the internet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090908/25b8fc58/attachment-0001.html From craigstamps at comcast.net Tue Sep 8 22:59:49 2009 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:59:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases 20 References: <694eadd40909062032k28f98a8cr80ccaeab94199640@mail.gmail.com> <662977.72668.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001001ca30c7$4e7c3af0$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> A voice of sanity to be sure...though I would go to midchart at 750 mp and superchart at 2500. I personally find it interesting to pay against blue and multi and the various precisions, though I shall never be able to afford international competition. But the bunnies provide the underpinnings financially to make competition of a higher order available and they should have enjoyment while the select few filter themselves out into stronger competition. Yes it can be boring playing against lol methods...but the sociability can be very rewarding. These are often very nice people who also enjoy bridge and many of whom try to improve as far as they can. After all, they could choose parcheesi or Monopoly or tv soaps. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: Ted Ying To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases 20 Although I myself understand this logic, I do not think it applies to the bulk of the ACBL. I personally think that having multiple convention charts (GCC, Mid-Chart, Super-Chart) is quite appropriate, but that the ACBL needs to be a little more liberal in the application. Of the 160-180K players in the ACBL, I would guess that you have less than say 500 that play at the international level and probably less than 10,000 that play at the top-ranked national level. For the vast majority, well over 100K, they only play at the local level in clubs and many of them play at a beginning level. Years ago, I used to travel for my job and I would sometimes play at a local club with a pickup partner. I found many players at the club level around the country played at a non-life master level and really did not have that much experience. For them to have to play against a wide variety of disparate and sometimes difficult to defend against systems or systems which they'll never encounter except for one or two odd pairs, is not fair and would serve no purporse. Most of these players will play very few tournaments beyond a local sectional. I just checked the ACBL site and there are just under 162K ACBL players. less than 7K hold 2500+ masterpoints. Only 26.5K hold 1000+ masterpoints. and only 67K have 300+ masterpoints. That means that there are nearly 100K ACBL players that are non-life masters. That said, I think that all regional events with an upper limit of 1000 masterpoints or higher should use the mid-chart and that all regional or higher ranked events with an upper masterpoint limit of 5000 or higher should use the Superchart. This would mean that those that compete at the highest levels do have that experience playing against these systems commonly used internationally, but that the common club players or local players at Sectionals wouldn't have to play against such a variety of systems for their level. -Ted Ying. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Harald Skj?ran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 9:20:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases 20 Yes, that's one reason why you shouldn't have all the system/convention restrictions you have in the ACBL. When your players play international championships or in other tournaments abroad, they are at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the field, who are familiar with a lot more methods. And I also believe that these restrictions is a drawback when it comes to keeping more of the young players, who might find it dull to be so restricted. Although, that's maybe so much the case these days, when they can play whatever they want on the internet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20090908/3bde1662/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 9 00:24:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:24:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but almost anything can be defended as not a significant failure. Politicians do not appreciate the significance of 'significant'." Marv French (last week): >>The Preface to the ACBL's 1975 Lawbook used the word >>"substantive," which I should have used perhaps. Not much >>difference in the meaning. [snip] >>Edgar Kaplan was on the Drafting Committee for the International >>Code, and was chairman of the ACBL LC at the time. I doubt that >>he would have allowed any "substantive" change. Richard Hills (last week): >Interesting use of the word "doubt" by Marv, since both he and I >enjoyed the highly ambiguous movie "Doubt" (starring Meryl Streep). "Doubt" (last year): Father Flynn: Where is your compassion? Sister Aloysius: Nowhere you can get at it. Richard Hills (last week): >To test whether Marv's doubtful belief is well-founded, next week I >will post a comprehensive comparison of the two 1975 Lawbooks. Richard Hills (this week): The 1997 Lawbook's footnote to Law 75 was written in a flowing essay style. When the footnote was upgraded to the 2007 Law 75, complete with alphabetically labelled clauses, there was some rearrangement of paragraphs but not any "significant" change of meaning. Likewise, the entire Proprieties of the 1975 WBF Lawbook were written in a flowing essay style. The 1975 ACBL Lawbook introducing alphabetically labelled clauses and numbered sub-clauses again meant that there was some rearrangement of paragraphs but not any "significant" change of meaning. But the devil is in the detail. The 1975 WBF Lawbook and the 1975 ACBL Lawbook were substantially identical only up to and including the 1975 Law 74 (what is now the 2007 Law 78). 1975 WBF Laws deleted by the ACBL were: 1975 WBF Law 75 - Duties of Official Scorer 1975 WBF Law 76 - Process of Recording Scores 1975 WBF Law 77 - Verification of Scores 1975 WBF Law 79 - Determination of Winners in Match-Point Events 1975 WBF Law 80 - Match-Point Scoring, Ties 1975 WBF Law 81 - Resolution of Ties in Pair or Individual Events 1975 WBF Law 82 - Resolution of Ties in Match-Point Team Event 1975 WBF Law 83 - IMP Scoring, Tabulation of Points 1975 WBF Law 84 - IMP Scoring, Determination of Winners 1975 WBF Law 85 - IMP Scoring, Ties 1975 WBF Law 86 - Determination of Winners in Total-Point Events 1975 WBF Law 87 - Resolution of Ties in Total-Point Team Events 1975 WBF Law 96 - Fouled Board (only second half deleted by ACBL) Also deleted by the ACBL were 1975 WBF Laws 78 and 103-117, but these contained internal authorisation to be varied by the National Authority / Sponsoring Organisation. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 9 00:50:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 23:50:29 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <6981936.1252450229769.JavaMail.root@ps32.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 08/09/2009 23:24 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] ACBL and the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Sir Humphrey Appleby: > >"Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but almost anything >can be defended as not a significant failure. Politicians do not >appreciate the significance of 'significant'." > >Marv French (last week): > >>>The Preface to the ACBL's 1975 Lawbook used the word >>>"substantive," which I should have used perhaps. Not much >>>difference in the meaning. > >[snip] > >>>Edgar Kaplan was on the Drafting Committee for the International >>>Code, and was chairman of the ACBL LC at the time. I doubt that >>>he would have allowed any "substantive" change. > >Richard Hills (last week): > >>Interesting use of the word "doubt" by Marv, since both he and I >>enjoyed the highly ambiguous movie "Doubt" (starring Meryl Streep). > >"Doubt" (last year): > >Father Flynn: Where is your compassion? >Sister Aloysius: Nowhere you can get at it. > >Richard Hills (last week): > >>To test whether Marv's doubtful belief is well-founded, next week I >>will post a comprehensive comparison of the two 1975 Lawbooks. > >Richard Hills (this week): > >The 1997 Lawbook's footnote to Law 75 was written in a flowing essay >style. When the footnote was upgraded to the 2007 Law 75, complete >with alphabetically labelled clauses, there was some rearrangement >of paragraphs but not any "significant" change of meaning. > >Likewise, the entire Proprieties of the 1975 WBF Lawbook were >written in a flowing essay style. The 1975 ACBL Lawbook introducing >alphabetically labelled clauses and numbered sub-clauses again meant >that there was some rearrangement of paragraphs but not any >"significant" change of meaning. > >But the devil is in the detail. > >The 1975 WBF Lawbook and the 1975 ACBL Lawbook were substantially >identical only up to and including the 1975 Law 74 (what is now the >2007 Law 78). 1975 WBF Laws deleted by the ACBL were: > >1975 WBF Law 75 - Duties of Official Scorer >1975 WBF Law 76 - Process of Recording Scores >1975 WBF Law 77 - Verification of Scores >1975 WBF Law 79 - Determination of Winners in Match-Point Events >1975 WBF Law 80 - Match-Point Scoring, Ties >1975 WBF Law 81 - Resolution of Ties in Pair or Individual Events >1975 WBF Law 82 - Resolution of Ties in Match-Point Team Event >1975 WBF Law 83 - IMP Scoring, Tabulation of Points >1975 WBF Law 84 - IMP Scoring, Determination of Winners >1975 WBF Law 85 - IMP Scoring, Ties >1975 WBF Law 86 - Determination of Winners in Total-Point Events >1975 WBF Law 87 - Resolution of Ties in Total-Point Team Events >1975 WBF Law 96 - Fouled Board (only second half deleted by ACBL) > >Also deleted by the ACBL were 1975 WBF Laws 78 and 103-117, but >these contained internal authorisation to be varied by the National >Authority / Sponsoring Organisation. > +=+ Pending publication of our minutes you may like to prepare a defintion of ?nsignificant'. Grattan +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 9 02:52:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:52:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Other game analogies [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Oliver Burkeman, The Guardian, 19th September 2005: It is comforting that the finest minds in science are as prone as the rest of us to bitching. But the theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958) is in a category of his own: the withering comment for which he's best known combines utter contempt on the one hand with philosophical profundity on the other. "This isn't right," Pauli is supposed to have said of a student's physics paper. "It's not even wrong." "Not even wrong" is enjoying a resurgence as the put-down of choice for questionable science: it's been used to condemn everything from string theory, via homoeopathy, to intelligent design. There's a reason for this: Pauli's insult slices to the heart of what distinguishes good science from bad. "I use 'not even wrong' to refer to things that are so speculative that there would be no way ever to know whether they're right or wrong," says Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University who runs the weblog Not Even Wrong. (www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/) [snip] Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >In contrast, people spend more time *playing* the game of Bridge >than *watching*. Hence, IMO, law-makers can be less assiduous in >encouraging infractions. Richard Hills: Nigel's argument is Not Even Wrong, since blml debates over the years have shown that there is no evidence which would ever cause Nigel to believe the fact that The Powers That Be are assiduous in creating Duplicate Laws that discourage intentional infractions, and the fact that intentional infractions are more easily revealed at Duplicate Bridge than in most other games. Nigel Guthrie: >Instead, I feel that the law-makers should simplify the rules Albert Einstein, 10th June 1933, Einstein's Razor: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." Richard Hills: The application of Einstein's Razor to The Fabulous Law Book means that TFLB should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler. The fundamental nature of Duplicate Bridge should continue to have "adequate representation" in any hypothetical future revision of TFLB; Nigel is no doubt be familiar with the old English metaphor "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Nigel Guthrie: >enough for players to be able to understand them and comply with >them. [snip] Richard Hills: Nigel's argument is Not Even Wrong, since players do understand the Law 44C requirement to follow suit and all other need-to-know Laws. Bernard Woolley: "The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, and therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt that the information that he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known, and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed." 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 Sep 9 03:25:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:25:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40909061349k609280b6x577fd72718619f32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky, first thoughts: >>>The normal way to judge whether a BIT was likely is to examine the >>>hand held by the player alleged to have hesitated. Gordon Rainsford: >>The normal way to judge whether a BIT occurred is to question the >>players at the table. Adam Wildavsky, second thoughts: >When faced with conflicting testimony, the usual way to judge whether >a BIT was likely is to examine the hand held by the player alleged to >have hesitated. Richard Hills: When faced with conflicting testimony, the Best way to judge Any set of disputed facts is to question the players at the table. The Law 85 criterion is "balance of probabilities", Not "guilty until proved innocent". Adam Wildavsky, third thoughts: ??? 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 Sep 9 04:23:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:23:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bunnies (was case 20) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001ca30c7$4e7c3af0$6401a8c0@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Myxomatosis (referred to "myxo") is a disease that kills rabbits. It was intentionally introduced to Australia in 1950. Some rabbits have built up an immunity. Myxomatosis Two Bids (invented by Bob Sebesfi) were intentionally introduced to the Canberra Bridge Club by Richard Hills in 1985. Some CBC rabbits have built up an immunity by adopting the convention themselves. Ted Ying: [snip] >>For them to have to play against a wide variety of disparate and >>sometimes difficult to defend against systems or systems which >>they'll never encounter except for one or two odd pairs, is not >>fair and would serve no purpose. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, it is not fair that I, an Aussie semi-expert, am constantly playing against Aussie bunnies who bamboozle me with presumptuous application of their Brown Sticker Myxo Twos. For example, last night my bunny RHO opened a Myxo 2H, promising either: Acol Two with hearts, or Weak Two with spades, or Weak 5/5 with minors, or 25-26 hcp balanced and as a result my side got too high in 4C. Craig: [snip] >But the bunnies provide the underpinnings financially to make >competition of a higher order available and they should have >enjoyment while the select few filter themselves out into stronger >competition. Yes it can be boring playing against lol methods... [snip] Richard Hills: Another Canberra bunny pair presumptuously created their entire Red bidding system by themselves during a beach holiday. So against these idiosyncratic bunnies I can no longer coast by relying on my memory of "normal bidding" to draw inferences from their auction. Rather, I am forced into the boring horror of actual ratiocination. :-) :-) 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 Wed Sep 9 05:28:03 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:28:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Help (I need somebody -- double UI ruling) In-Reply-To: <4A9E9019.8000007@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4A9E9019.8000007@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AA720C3.2030303@nhcc.net> From: rfrick at rfrick.info > Everyone here thinks that at this point I should stop play and award > A+/A-. Someone says they got that answer from the ACBL too. It is, alas, all too likely someone at the ACBL gave that answer. As others wrote, that's not what's supposed to happen. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Sep 9 05:37:32 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:37:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 In-Reply-To: <4AA6CD46.5010901@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AA6CD46.5010901@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AA722FC.7030209@nhcc.net> From: Gordon Rainsford > We're supposed to establish whether there was a BIT, if so whether it > demonstrably suggests the chosen action, and whether there was a > logical alternative to that action. What has happened above is to do > things in reverse. Not at all. The first step is finding whether there was a BIT or not. To that end, all available evidence should be used. The occurrence of the 4C bid is evidence. *If* one accepts that the 4C bid was improbable without a BIT but attractive with one, the bid itself provides strong evidence that the BIT occurred. If, on the other hand, the 4C bid was completely normal with or without a BIT, it provides no evidence either way. Bayes Theorem (which Gordon surely understands) makes these statements quantitative if you can assign numerical probabilities. By the way, I don't see any harm in doing the analysis in reverse order or indeed any order as long as enough steps are completed to give a valid ruling, but that's not the issue here. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 3 09:05:49 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:05:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A9F6ACD.4030409@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C (1) 2S (2) Pass ? > > (1) Benjy Acol style; on average slightly longer clubs and slighter > fewer hcp than a Two-Over-One Game Force 1C opening bid. > > (2) Intermediate, no particular hcp range, but shows 6 playing tricks. > > You, South, hold: > > A5 > KJT73 > AKT > AJ2 > > What bizarre call do you make? None, at the moment. I ask myself a couple of questions. Would partner bid 2S on KQJxxxx and out? Would West open something like xx, AQ, QJx, Q10xxxx? What about x, Qx, QJx, KQxxxxx ? If I get yes, no, no I call for another partner, no,yes,no leads to 6NT, no,no, yes (extremely unlikely) would lead to unbelieving stares and 7NT, the last two after checking on KCs and the king of Clubs. ( In case someone thinks I get to high: 4N - 5D - 5H - 5N (Q of S, no K of C) So unless I get a yes to the first question I call 4NT, checking for KCs. I would prefer to bid 2NT as a forcing relay, asking for description with Ogust-like responses, but I doubt that I could persuade someone who plays jumps like these to play that method. > What other bizarre calls do you consider making? Consider? Oh, lots of them. 3C, 3H, 3N, 4S. Actually make them? Not until I suspect my partner of being somewhat undisciplined (elegant euphemism for raving mad). Best regards Matthias > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Sep 9 05:53:17 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:53:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Disclosure] In-Reply-To: <4AA67C99.3030602@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4AA67C99.3030602@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4AA726AD.80705@nhcc.net> From: Alain Gottcheiner > a. They asked about 1S. Partner said "4+ diamonds, often 5, denies 4 > spades unless reversing values", which is a complete descirption. > Now they ask about 2D, you answer "positive raise, occasionally 3 cards > in a strong NT type", which is a complete description. I'd have mentioned it's a raise of diamonds, but failing to do so shouldn't cause damage. > b. They didn't ask about 1S, but looked at the appropriate place on your > card, and you're confident that they know what they have to know about 1S. > Since checking the SC is equivalent to asking, they're allowed to ask > about 2D, and for the same reason you adopt the same attitude as in a. > You carefully avoid saying "positive raise *in diamonds*" This seems dubious, but again it shouldn't cause damage. > c. They didn't ask at all nor check the SC about 1S (they think you play > it as 5+ as everyone does), but they ask about 2D. Perhaps this isn't > 100% kosher, but you still have to answer. > Now you have to say "positive raise *in diamonds*" Just as I would have done in the other cases. > and too bad if it > transmits UI and it costs you at the end. This is the "Majority School" position. Personally, I prefer the "Rubens School" (where correct explanations are AI to partner), but that's a different discussion. > d. Explanations should transmit all relevant information about your > system, Yes. > avoiding any mannerism (e.g. always state the elements of a > Multi-bid in the same order). Nice if you can manage it but not truly essential as long as nothing about your own hand is transmitted. > *They shouldn't vary *according to events > at the table (e.g. you'd still explain Multi after the ensuing bididng > has shown it was strong, because this has an impact on your esponse). When bids have multiple meanings that are later distinguished, I generally give only the actual meaning of the full sequence, not all possible meanings of the early bids. For multi revealed to be strong, for example, "showing 22-23 balanced now, though 2D could have been other things" seems about right. If they want information about my bids, they need to ask partner. (In the multi example, he might say "2H showed two or fewer hearts or rarely three in a flat hand and at most a minimum opening bid in values.") I would not vary my explanation according to whether they had asked previous questions or looked at my SC. If that leads them astray despite my correct explanations, too bad for them! > Forget about a, we'll all agree. Apparently not. > The corrct answer probably is that there should be two levels of alert Oh, please no!!! This was tried in the ACBL and was awful. If there is a common but alertable meaning for something, it is _far_ better to use an announcement for that meaning and have just one kind of alert for everything else. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 9 05:16:16 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 23:16:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:25:34 -0400, wrote: > Adam Wildavsky, first thoughts: > >>>> The normal way to judge whether a BIT was likely is to examine the >>>> hand held by the player alleged to have hesitated. > > Gordon Rainsford: > >>> The normal way to judge whether a BIT occurred is to question the >>> players at the table. > > Adam Wildavsky, second thoughts: > >> When faced with conflicting testimony, the usual way to judge whether >> a BIT was likely is to examine the hand held by the player alleged to >> have hesitated. > > Richard Hills: > > When faced with conflicting testimony, the Best way to judge Any set > of disputed facts is to question the players at the table. > > The Law 85 criterion is "balance of probabilities", Not "guilty until > proved innocent". > > Adam Wildavsky, third thoughts: > > ??? If someone says there was a BIT at the table, there probably was. Best way to calculate the length of the BIT: shorter than what the OS say, longer than what the NOS say, take the average. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 9 08:10:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:10:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >If someone says there was a BIT at the table, there probably was. > >Best way to calculate the length of the BIT: shorter than what the >OS say, longer than what the NOS say, take the average. Richard Hills: Yes, a rule of thumb espoused by David Stevenson (and before him, Edgar Kaplan). No, not what is required by the Law 85A1 criterion "...the weight of the evidence he is able to collect". If someone says there is facial tumour disease on a Tasmanian Devil, there probably is. But an able person would collect more evidence by actually looking at the face of that Tasmanian Devil, thereby discovering that that particular Tasmanian Devil is disease-free due to being carefully raised in captivity. 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 Sep 9 09:09:33 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:09:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AA722FC.7030209@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >...*If* one accepts that the 4C bid was improbable without a BIT >but attractive with one, the bid itself provides strong evidence >that the BIT occurred... Richard Hills: *If* one accepts that every observation of a white swan makes the statement "all swans are white" more attractive, and all failures to observe a black swan strong evidence for the statement "all swans are white", then observing a red pencil is strong evidence for "all swans are white" since the red pencil is not a black swan. Of course, observing a red pencil is also evidence for "all swans are black", since it is not a white swan. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 9 11:54:06 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:54:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] [Fwd: Disclosure] In-Reply-To: <4AA726AD.80705@nhcc.net> References: <4AA67C99.3030602@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AA726AD.80705@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4AA77B3E.9040404@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > > >> avoiding any mannerism (e.g. always state the elements of a >> Multi-bid in the same order). >> > > Nice if you can manage it but not truly essential as long as nothing > about your own hand is transmitted. > But this isn't the case. You'll tend to mention first the meaning you expect, and that's induced by your actual hand. > > > The corrct answer probably is that there should be two levels of alert > > Oh, please no!!! This was tried in the ACBL and was awful. If there is > a common but alertable meaning for something, it is _far_ better to use > an announcement for that meaning and have just one kind of alert for > everything else. > > AG : that's what I call two levels of alert (i.e. of attracting opponents' attention). Yes, the Rubens school would be a good solution to this problem. Not having studied it, I can't say whether it causes some other problems, but surely it's worth considering. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 9 15:56:29 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:56:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A9F6ACD.4030409@t-online.de> References: <4A9F6ACD.4030409@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4AA7B40D.1060604@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > > >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: West >> Vul: Both >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 1C (1) 2S (2) Pass ? >> >> (1) Benjy Acol style; on average slightly longer clubs and slighter >> fewer hcp than a Two-Over-One Game Force 1C opening bid. >> >> (2) Intermediate, no particular hcp range, but shows 6 playing tricks. >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> A5 >> KJT73 >> AKT >> AJ2 >> >> What bizarre call do you make? >> > > None, at the moment. I ask myself a couple of questions. > > Would partner bid 2S on KQJxxxx and out? > Would West open something like xx, AQ, QJx, Q10xxxx? > What about x, Qx, QJx, KQxxxxx ? > > If I get yes, no, no I call for another partner, no,yes,no leads to 6NT, > no,no, yes (extremely unlikely) would lead to unbelieving stares and > 7NT, the last two after checking on KCs and the king of Clubs. ( In case > someone thinks I get to high: 4N - 5D - 5H - 5N (Q of S, no K of C) > > So unless I get a yes to the first question I call 4NT Up to this point, I agree with your analysis. Now we're told that the answer to question 1 is yes (remember the description : 6 tricks independently of honor strength), so I don't call 4NT. Of course, Ogust relays fit with this method. Why would it be so unlikely to use them ? (expecially mine, with 3C a catchall positive response) Notice that 4NT would have produced the playable contract of 5S facing the actual hand, so it's better than bashing 6. As a general remark, it would be nice if, in UI/MI/psyche cases, when methods are given, we bid according to them, not according to what we consider to be good bridge. Best regards Alain > , checking for > KCs. I would prefer to bid 2NT as a forcing relay, asking for > description with Ogust-like responses, but I doubt that I could persuade > someone who plays jumps like these to play that method. > > >> What other bizarre calls do you consider making? >> > > Consider? Oh, lots of them. 3C, 3H, 3N, 4S. Actually make them? Not > until I suspect my partner of being somewhat undisciplined (elegant > euphemism for raving mad). > > Best regards > Matthias > > >> Best wishes >> >> R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 >> Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >> Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged >> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy >> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: >> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 9 16:10:51 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:10:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6BE95959271D474F87EF91C110E9943A@NigelPC> References: <6BE95959271D474F87EF91C110E9943A@NigelPC> Message-ID: <8C003793F1C74C5B9F94964F598B181D@NigelPC> [Richard hills quoting Oliver Burkeman, The Guardian, 19th September 2005] It is comforting that the finest minds in science are as prone as the rest of us to bitching. But the theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958) is in a category of his own: the withering comment for which he's best known combines utter contempt on the one hand with philosophical profundity on the other. "This isn't right," Pauli is supposed to have said of a student's physics paper. "It's not even wrong." "Not even wrong" is enjoying a resurgence as the put-down of choice for questionable science: it's been used to condemn everything from string theory, via homoeopathy, to intelligent design. There's a reason for this: Pauli's insult slices to the heart of what distinguishes good science from bad. "I use 'not even wrong' to refer to things that are so speculative that there would be no way ever to know whether they're right or wrong," says Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University who runs the weblog Not Even Wrong. (www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/) [Nigel] With the preamble, above, Richard condemned one of my posts as "Not even wrong". On reflection, however, this may not be a put-down after all: The statements in question were *not* pragmatically meaningless. Saying that such statement "is not even wrong" must mean that "I hope it's wrong but I can't refute it". Praise indeed :) From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 9 16:22:44 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:22:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <4AA60884.7090403@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AA60884.7090403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <7C3D9F3F-11AF-40EC-B5E8-E7FA21191450@starpower.net> On Sep 8, 2009, at 3:32 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I still have some problems with disclosure laws and ethics. > This is based on a live case, only slightly adjusted for the sake > of purity. > Once in a while, there will be no difference between schools, so I can > expect calm waters. > > partner you > > 1C 1H 1S p > 2D > > 1S (duly alerted) shows 4+ diamonds (double would show 4+ spades) > 2D is a constructive raise (3D being preemptive, and weak balanced > hands > being opened 1NT) > > Notice that if 1S showed 5+ spades (and double exactly 4), a very > common > treatment in my country, it would still have been alertable. > > Here are four statements, each of which has been acknowledged by > (independently consulted) TDs. > > a. They asked about 1S. Partner said "4+ diamonds, often 5, denies 4 > spades unless reversing values", which is a complete descirption. > Now they ask about 2D, you answer "positive raise, occasionally 3 > cards > in a strong NT type", which is a complete description. You've done > everything you had to do. > > b. They didn't ask about 1S, but looked at the appropriate place on > your > card, and you're confident that they know what they have to know > about 1S. > Since checking the SC is equivalent to asking, they're allowed to ask > about 2D, and for the same reason you adopt the same attitude as in a. > You carefully avoid saying "positive raise *in diamonds*", lest > this be > taken as a reminder to partner about the meaning of your own bid > (maybe > he just alerted because he thought it showed 5+ spades). Since they > eventually got full disclosure of your agreements, this is > irreproachable. > > c. They didn't ask at all nor check the SC about 1S (they think you > play > it as 5+ as everyone does), but they ask about 2D. Perhaps this isn't > 100% kosher, but you still have to answer. > Now you have to say "positive raise *in diamonds*", and too bad if it > transmits UI and it costs you at the end. If you didn't, they might > believe it is a positive raise in spades (why not ?), and for example > RHO (that is, partner's LHO) might pass and discover too late that it > wans't forcing. > > d. Explanations should transmit all relevant information about your > system, avoiding any mannerism (e.g. always state the elements of a > Multi-bid in the same order). *They shouldn't vary *according to > events > at the table (e.g. you'd still explain Multi after the ensuing bididng > has shown it was strong, because this has an impact on your esponse). > > Forget about a, we'll all agree. > But items b-c-d create a contradiction. Which one is wrong ? > > The corrct answer probably is that there should be two levels of > alert, > and if they don't ask about a "double-alerted" bid too bad for > them, but > it isn't part of TFLB yet. > Or that in c. you'd say "please ask about 1S first, you'll need it". I > like this, I've occasionally done so, but it isn't kosher either. The ACBL tells us that in reply to a question, one should be as helpful and forthcoming as possible. Any inquiry should "trigger" a full explanation of the call, even when a narrower answer about some specific aspect of it would literally satisfy the inquiry. So if a "complete and correct" (and helpful) explanation of 2D in context requires an explanation of the 1S bid as a "prerequisite" to understanding the meaning and implications of 2D, I don't see a problem (or an irregularity) in just going ahead and explaining it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 9 16:28:48 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:28:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:10:25 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> If someone says there was a BIT at the table, there probably was. >> >> Best way to calculate the length of the BIT: shorter than what the >> OS say, longer than what the NOS say, take the average. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, a rule of thumb espoused by David Stevenson (and before him, > Edgar Kaplan). > > No, not what is required by the Law 85A1 criterion "...the weight of > the evidence he is able to collect". > > If someone says there is facial tumour disease on a Tasmanian Devil, > there probably is. But an able person would collect more evidence > by actually looking at the face of that Tasmanian Devil, thereby > discovering that that particular Tasmanian Devil is disease-free due > to being carefully raised in captivity. Definitely watch the video of the auction when available. My guess is that it would be a mistake for a director to assume he/she can tell when people are telling the truth or not. Worse is to make the assumption, never get any real feedback on actual ability, and forget that it was just an assumption. My guess is that if a director has had experience with sociopaths and things he/she can tell when a sociopath is telling the truth or not, then there is no problem. But I also guess that any director who has experience with sociopaths has given up on knowing when people are telling the truth. I would be glad to hear otherwise. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 9 16:30:38 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:30:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <7C3D9F3F-11AF-40EC-B5E8-E7FA21191450@starpower.net> References: <4AA60884.7090403@ulb.ac.be> <7C3D9F3F-11AF-40EC-B5E8-E7FA21191450@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4AA7BC0E.3000402@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > The ACBL tells us that in reply to a question, one should be as > helpful and forthcoming as possible. Any inquiry should "trigger" a > full explanation of the call, even when a narrower answer about some > specific aspect of it would literally satisfy the inquiry. > > So if a "complete and correct" (and helpful) explanation of 2D in > context requires an explanation of the 1S bid as a "prerequisite" to > understanding the meaning and implications of 2D, I don't see a > problem (or an irregularity) in just going ahead and explaining it. > AG : I see a problem in remembering partner what my own bid meant when I can avoid it, but perhaps this is just a view of my tortured mind. One linked question : pass 1D 2C* 3D 3H 2C : 5+C and 4+H (alerted but not asked about) Do you have to alert 3H, since opener won't expect any Heart honors to lie on his left ? And what do you explain ? From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 9 16:48:45 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:48:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Other game analogies [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <600EB51DBB4247768D360BCD36E8DB26@NigelPC> [Nige1] In contrast, people spend more time *playing* the game of Bridge than *watching*. Hence, IMO, law-makers can be less assiduous in encouraging infractions. [Richard Hills] [snip] Nigel's argument is Not Even Wrong, since blml debates over the years have shown that there is no evidence which would ever cause Nigel to believe the fact that The Powers That Be are assiduous in creating Duplicate Laws that discourage intentional infractions, and the fact that intentional infractions are more easily revealed at Duplicate Bridge than in most other games. [Nige2] The preface to the laws says that they are "primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged." I claim that reducing deterrence encourages infractions. My concern is with infractions due to ignorance or carelessness or rationalization. I'm content to leave the topic of deliberate cheating to others. [Nigel] Instead, I feel that the law-makers should simplify the rules enough for players to be able to understand them and comply with them. [Richard Hills] [snip] The application of Einstein's Razor to The Fabulous Law Book means that TFLB should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler. The fundamental nature of Duplicate Bridge should continue to have "adequate representation" in any hypothetical future revision of TFLB; Nigel is no doubt be familiar with the old English metaphor "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Nigel's argument is Not Even Wrong, since players do understand the Law 44C requirement to follow suit and all other need-to-know Laws. [Nige2] Of course, we all agree that changes shouldn't alter the fundamental nature or spoil our enjoyment of the game. Nevertheless, many BLML cases have shown how ignorance of legal arcana can damage the ordinary player. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 9 17:05:43 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:05:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases 20 In-Reply-To: <662977.72668.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <694eadd40909062032k28f98a8cr80ccaeab94199640@mail.gmail.com> <662977.72668.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <756BA313-AEB3-4C10-9CFB-6F407E3BF4F5@starpower.net> On Sep 8, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Ted Ying wrote: > Although I myself understand this logic, I do not think it applies > to the > bulk of the ACBL. I personally think that having multiple convention > charts (GCC, Mid-Chart, Super-Chart) is quite appropriate, but that > the > ACBL needs to be a little more liberal in the application. > > Of the 160-180K players in the ACBL, I would guess that you have > less than say 500 that play at the international level and probably > less than 10,000 that play at the top-ranked national level. For the > vast majority, well over 100K, they only play at the local level in > clubs and many of them play at a beginning level. Years ago, I used > to travel for my job and I would sometimes play at a local club with a > pickup partner. I found many players at the club level around the > country played at a non-life master level and really did not have that > much experience. For them to have to play against a wide variety of > disparate and sometimes difficult to defend against systems or systems > which they'll never encounter except for one or two odd pairs, is not > fair and would serve no purporse. Most of these players will play > very few tournaments beyond a local sectional. > > I just checked the ACBL site and there are just under 162K ACBL > players. > less than 7K hold 2500+ masterpoints. Only 26.5K hold 1000+ > masterpoints. > and only 67K have 300+ masterpoints. That means that there are nearly > 100K ACBL players that are non-life masters. > > That said, I think that all regional events with an upper limit of > 1000 > masterpoints or higher should use the mid-chart and that all regional > or higher ranked events with an upper masterpoint limit of 5000 or > higher should use the Superchart. This would mean that those that > compete at the highest levels do have that experience playing against > these systems commonly used internationally, but that the common > club players or local players at Sectionals wouldn't have to play > against > such a variety of systems for their level. Ted assumes, as the ACBL does, that it is inexperienced players who wish to be "protected" from unfamiliar bidding methods. In my experience, however, the difference between those who would favor experimentation and innovation and those who would deprecate it is far more a matter of age and background than of masterpoint holding. If you overhear a vigorous debate over the wisdom or foolishness of the ACBL's highly restrictive policies on allowable methods, you are far less likely to discover that it is between an expert and a newbie than that it is between a college-age newbie, who argues that the scope to devise and experiment with bidding systems and methods is a major attraction for taking up the game, and an AARP-generation newbie, who considers violating the rote-memorized "rules" set down by their bridge teachers as not much different from violating the laws of the game. The ACBL does, wisely, allow individual bridge clubs to set their own policies in this regard. Wander into any college campus bridge club, where nobody has more than 100 masterpoints, and you will be happily allowed to play methods that would be "too complicated" or "too unusual" to be allowed in the top-level events at an ACBL Regional. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 9 17:26:32 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:26:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 In-Reply-To: <4AA722FC.7030209@nhcc.net> References: <4AA6CD46.5010901@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AA722FC.7030209@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:37 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > From: Gordon Rainsford > >> We're supposed to establish whether there was a BIT, if so whether it >> demonstrably suggests the chosen action, and whether there was a >> logical alternative to that action. What has happened above is to do >> things in reverse. > > Not at all. The first step is finding whether there was a BIT or not. > To that end, all available evidence should be used. > > The occurrence of the 4C bid is evidence. *If* one accepts that > the 4C > bid was improbable without a BIT but attractive with one, the bid > itself > provides strong evidence that the BIT occurred. If, on the other > hand, > the 4C bid was completely normal with or without a BIT, it provides no > evidence either way. Bayes Theorem (which Gordon surely understands) > makes these statements quantitative if you can assign numerical > probabilities. > > By the way, I don't see any harm in doing the analysis in reverse > order > or indeed any order as long as enough steps are completed to give a > valid ruling, but that's not the issue here. As a practical matter, it is not merely harmless, but necessary. More often than not, whether or not there was a BIT is the most difficult and contentious of the necessary findings. It is routine for committees to look at other aspects of these appeals first in order to ascertain whether or not such a finding is needed, in the hope of not being there all night. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 9 18:26:21 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:26:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <4AA726AD.80705@nhcc.net> References: <4AA67C99.3030602@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AA726AD.80705@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:53 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > From: Alain Gottcheiner > >> The corrct answer probably is that there should be two levels of >> alert > > Oh, please no!!! This was tried in the ACBL and was awful. If > there is > a common but alertable meaning for something, it is _far_ better to > use > an announcement for that meaning and have just one kind of alert for > everything else. Language quibble: one might well agree with both Alain and Steve. "An announcement for [the most common alertable] meaning and... one kind of alert for everything else" *is* two levels of alert. While "transfer" and "alert" do seem clearer than "alert" and "special alert" for transfers and other artificial meanings respectively, their semantic content is the same. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 9 18:46:36 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:46:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <4AA7BC0E.3000402@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AA60884.7090403@ulb.ac.be> <7C3D9F3F-11AF-40EC-B5E8-E7FA21191450@starpower.net> <4AA7BC0E.3000402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> The ACBL tells us that in reply to a question, one should be as >> helpful and forthcoming as possible. Any inquiry should "trigger" a >> full explanation of the call, even when a narrower answer about some >> specific aspect of it would literally satisfy the inquiry. >> >> So if a "complete and correct" (and helpful) explanation of 2D in >> context requires an explanation of the 1S bid as a "prerequisite" to >> understanding the meaning and implications of 2D, I don't see a >> problem (or an irregularity) in just going ahead and explaining it. > > AG : I see a problem in remembering partner what my own bid meant > when I > can avoid it, but perhaps this is just a view of my tortured mind. > > One linked question : > > pass > 1D 2C* 3D 3H > > 2C : 5+C and 4+H (alerted but not asked about) > > Do you have to alert 3H, since opener won't expect any Heart honors to > lie on his left ? And what do you explain ? I don't think this should be alerted, as it is a natural bid and shouldn't be unexpected in context, notwithstanding that the opponents have failed to exercise their right to determine the context. If they ask about 3H having not asked about 2C, I would rule "no agreement" (assumed true for this example) as MI by virtue of being an incomplete, albeit correct, explanation. IMO, the "correct and complete" (not to mention helpful) reply has to be something like, "I showed 4+ hearts and 5+ clubs, but we have no particular agreement about this 3H bid." Your opponents are entitled to know "as much about the 3H bid as you do", and you just can't get there without explaining 2C. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 9 23:07:30 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:07:30 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Disclosure Message-ID: <18021118.1252530450864.JavaMail.root@ps28> >----Original Message---- >From: ehaa at starpower.net >Date: 09/09/2009 17:46 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Disclosure > >On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> The ACBL tells us that in reply to a question, one should be as >>> helpful and forthcoming as possible. Any inquiry should "trigger" a >>> full explanation of the call, even when a narrower answer about some >>> specific aspect of it would literally satisfy the inquiry. >>> >>> So if a "complete and correct" (and helpful) explanation of 2D in >>> context requires an explanation of the 1S bid as a "prerequisite" to >>> understanding the meaning and implications of 2D, I don't see a >>> problem (or an irregularity) in just going ahead and explaining it. >> >> AG : I see a problem in remembering partner what my own bid meant >> when I >> can avoid it, but perhaps this is just a view of my tortured mind. >> >> One linked question : >> >> pass >> 1D 2C* 3D 3H >> >> 2C : 5+C and 4+H (alerted but not asked about) >> >> Do you have to alert 3H, since opener won't expect any Heart honors to >> lie on his left ? And what do you explain ? > >I don't think this should be alerted, as it is a natural bid and >shouldn't be unexpected in context, notwithstanding that the >opponents have failed to exercise their right to determine the context. > >If they ask about 3H having not asked about 2C, I would rule "no >agreement" (assumed true for this example) as MI by virtue of being >an incomplete, albeit correct, explanation. IMO, the "correct and >complete" (not to mention helpful) reply has to be something like, "I >showed 4+ hearts and 5+ clubs, but we have no particular agreement >about this 3H bid." > >Your opponents are entitled to know "as much about the 3H bid as you >do", and you just can't get there without explaining 2C. > +=+ Before you go too far along this road itmay be well to see what the laws say about who should explain. (Laws 20F1 and 20F2). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 10 01:21:51 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:21:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8C003793F1C74C5B9F94964F598B181D@NigelPC> Message-ID: Raymond Chandler, 1947 letter to the editor of the Atlantic Monthly, on him being intentionally misquoted by that magazine: "Would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split." * * * [snipped preamble to previous post] Nigel Guthrie, purist paraphrase of previous post: >With the preamble, above, Richard condemned one of my posts as "Not >even wrong". On reflection, however, this may not be a put-down >after all: The statements in question were *not* pragmatically >meaningless. Saying that such statement "is not even wrong" must >mean that "I hope it's wrong but I can't refute it". Praise indeed :) Nigel Guthrie, persistent assertion over years of posts: >>>...Hence, IMO, law-makers can be less assiduous in encouraging >>>infractions... Richard Hills, unparaphrased previous post: >>Nigel's argument is Not Even Wrong, since blml debates over the >>years have shown that there is no evidence which would ever cause >>Nigel to believe the fact that The Powers That Be are assiduous in >>creating Duplicate Laws that discourage intentional infractions... Richard Hills, current post: If what Nigel is seeking is yet another counter-example to his hobby- horse, then here is yet more evidence for Nigel to ignore. :-) :-) New 2007 Law 40C3(b): "Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized." Richard Hills, current post: Two points -> (1) The 2007 Introduction states, "Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers", which includes discretion to discourage infractions. Note that Law 40C3(b) does not limit the Director's power to a Law 90 procedural penalty. So, for example, if a pair's system cards were grossly incorrect and thus they caused repeated MI, then the Director could apply a Law 91 disciplinary penalty, suspending the pair from the rest of the session to enable them to create accurate system cards. (2) The old 1997 Law 40 was much simpler than the new 2007 Law 40, so Nigel's twin desires for a much simpler Lawbook and an infraction- discouraging Lawbook are demonstrably dissonant. Nigel Guthrie, parallel post: >...I claim that reducing deterrence encourages infractions... Richard Hills: Now Nigel has graduated from Not Even Wrong to merely Wrong. Again this apparently common-sense idea has been previously refuted in The Real World (not merely on blml) and again Nigel keeps riding his hobby-horse despite The Real World evidence. 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 Sep 10 01:35:42 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:35:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AA7B40D.1060604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Title of the autobiography of English linguist David Crystal: "Just a Phrase I'm Going Through" Matthias Berghaus: >>So unless I get a yes to the first question I call 4NT Alain Gottcheiner: >Up to this point, I agree with your analysis. > >Now we're told that the answer to question 1 is yes (remember the >description : 6 tricks independently of honor strength), so I don't >call 4NT. Richard Hills: No, Alain has misinterpreted the partnership agreement. It is not merely two criteria: (a) 6 playing tricks, and (b) no particular hcp range but rather Three criteria; (a) 6 playing tricks, and (b) no particular hcp range, but (c) Intermediate (more honours than for a minimum 1-level overcall) so like Matthias Berghaus I call 4NT. 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 Sep 10 02:03:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:03:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >...More often than not, whether or not there was a BIT is the most >difficult and contentious of the necessary findings. It is routine >for committees to look at other aspects of these appeals first in >order to ascertain whether or not such a finding is needed, in the >hope of not being there all night. Richard Hills: Que? Surely determination of whether or not there was a break in tempo should primarily be the responsibility of the Director at the table, who had the advantage of contemporaneously questioning the players. Given that the memories of all four players get blurred after a few hours, then only very rarely should an Appeals Committee overturn the Director's assessment (e.g. evidence from a neutral and credible kibitzer might prompt such a rare reversal). Or is Eric referring to the daft and unLawful ACBL policy that all Appeals Committees must completely ignore the table Director's decisions, and rehear the entire ruling from scratch? Law 92A, first sentence: "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a **review** of any ruling made at his table by the Director." Pocket Oxford Dictionary: review, v.t. & i, View again, subject to revision, survey, glance over, look back on Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 10 02:08:44 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:08:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9D6372CFC82F431AB687AA3850CED7A6@NigelPC> [Nige1] ...I claim that reducing deterrence encourages infractions... [Richard Hills] Now Nigel has graduated from Not Even Wrong to merely Wrong. Again this apparently common-sense idea has been previously refuted in The Real World (not merely on blml) and again Nigel keeps riding his hobby-horse despite The Real World evidence. [Nige2] It seems that Richard and I agree to differ yet again :) From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 10 02:17:54 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:17:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12909EA345394A46870759A945AE545C@NigelPC> [Richard Hills] (1) The 2007 Introduction states, "Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers", which includes discretion to discourage infractions. Note that Law 40C3(b) does not limit the Director's power to a Law 90 procedural penalty. So, for example, if a pair's system cards were grossly incorrect and thus they caused repeated MI, then the Director could apply a Law 91 disciplinary penalty, suspending the pair from the rest of the session to enable them to create accurate system cards. (2) The old 1997 Law 40 was much simpler than the new 2007 Law 40, so Nigel's twin desires for a much simpler Lawbook and an infraction- discouraging Lawbook are demonstrably dissonant. [Nigel] IMO, that is a non-sequitor. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 10 04:05:19 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:05:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <12909EA345394A46870759A945AE545C@NigelPC> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: IMO, that is a non sequitur. Richard Hills, non sequitur: This list is about polite discussion of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, not about over-politely (and insincerely) "agreeing to disagree", so -> 1) I do not "agree to disagree" with any incorrect facts about the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. 2) I do not "agree to disagree" with any incorrect assertions about the motives of the authors of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. 3) In particular, I do not "agree to disagree" with this latest "Have you stopped beating your wife?" petitio principii -> Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >IMO, law-makers should consider the interests of players as >well as directors and administrators. Frederick Loewe (1904-1988), American composer: "I don't like my music, but what is my opinion against that of millions of others?" Richard Hills: Sure, if you preface any blml statement with In My Opinion then it is by definition true. But I suggest that Nigel replaces his word "should" with the word "do" if he wishes to make a truly factual statement. I observed the very hard work put in by the Drafting Committee (especially by Grattan Endicott) and I can testify how they were always considering the interests of players when writing, rewriting and re-rewriting the multitudinous drafts of 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Sep 10 06:03:24 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 21:03:24 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com><786C55FB49DF4822BEFCDC3D01444411@MARVLAPTOP> <694eadd40909071428g2b8e883ah658725873ffff773@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2595ECFAE1124FC8AE827CC356E71641@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Adam Wildavsky" < Marvin L French wrote: > > * E-W were supposed to have a written description of the 2D > convention available for the opponents. No, not an ACBL-approved > defense, I didn't say that. Just a written description, as > required > by the ACBL Mid-Chart. Adam: Indeed they were, but I've never yet met a pair who provided one. Marv: Nor I. ACBL regulations are not enforced, even at NABC+ levels. The hardworking C&C committee debates for hours about convention charts, the Alert procedure, and convention card requirements. The results are forwarded to the BoD as recommendations, the BoD endorses them, and they become ACBL regulations. The scofflaws ignore them at will, and the TDs and ACs do not enforce them. I am surprised that Adam seems to think that is okay. In the Washington NABC my wife and I played in the Bruce Life Master Pairs, limited to players with no more than 5,000 masterpoints. Since this is masterpoint-lmited, Mid-Chart conventions were not legal. However, DIC Solly said it was okay to use them, so my protest got nowhere. None came up at my table. Good thing, because our partnership isn't prepared to counter them, which is why we entered the limited event. I would complain about this, but can't find anyone in charge to whom I could complain. The ACBL needs a Chief Tournament Director, but the position has been abolished. Adam: What would it have said? "2D shows either hearts or spades, but not both." I think NS understood that part well. Marv: The possible advances of the 2D bid are quite extensive, not just 2H or 2S, and the actions to be taken if the other side acts are quite complicated. Opponents should know about these things, and a detailed description offered in the Pre-Alert period would provide that information. We don't know whether N-S would have done better had the correct procedure been followed. That would be up to an AC to decide. Not this AC, but a knowledgeable one. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 10 06:16:17 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:16:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AA7BC0E.3000402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner (intentionally misquoted by RJBH for clarity): >One linked question : > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >1D 2C* 3D 3H > >2C : 5+C and 4+H (alerted by South but not asked about) > >Does North have to alert 3H, since West won't expect any heart >honours to lie on her left? Richard Hills: A simple problem under the ABF Alert Rules. If East had asked about the meaning of North's alerted overcall, South's 3H would be obviously natural with not any additional unexpected meaning, and hence completely non-alertable. (Natural bids with unexpected meanings, for example "Negative Free Bids", are alertable under the ABF Alert Rules.) East's failure to enquire about 2C does not alter the completely non-alertable status of 3H. West can now protect herself from any possible damage by asking about the alerted 2C. If neither East nor West ask about 2C, and South's 3H is passed out, then under the ABF Alert Rules declarer, South, is required to ask West before her opening lead: "Would you like an explanation of the alerted 2C now?" 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 Sep 10 06:55:51 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:55:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <2888884.1252558551042.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matthias Berghaus: > > >>So unless I get a yes to the first question I call 4NT > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >Up to this point, I agree with your analysis. > > > >Now we're told that the answer to question 1 is yes (remember the > >description : 6 tricks independently of honor strength), so I don't > >call 4NT. > > Richard Hills: > > No, Alain has misinterpreted the partnership agreement. It is not > merely two criteria: > > (a) 6 playing tricks, and > (b) no particular hcp range > > but rather Three criteria; > > (a) 6 playing tricks, and > (b) no particular hcp range, but > (c) Intermediate (more honours than for a minimum 1-level overcall) > > so like Matthias Berghaus I call 4NT. I see no reason whatsoever to assume ("more honours than for a minimum 1-level overcall"). "more honours than for a minimum 1-level overcall" was not part of the stated partnership agreements when you initially posted this problem. "more honours than for a minimum 1-level overcall" also is worded in a way that it cannot be used for anything. There is no generally defined "minimum 1-level overcall". For example, one possible approach for overcalls, currently not in vogue, is to double on most hands with opening strength, and then to freely overcall on rubbish on the 1-level. Another possible approach is to overcall 1D over 1C with constructive hands only, but to overcall 1S over 1C on rubbish, because it takes away their bidding space, the 1-level is usually safe, and spades are the boss suit. Now I am thinking back to the good old times where a team of local little old ladies almost beat a team consisting of national champions by rolling the dice during the bidding - until one of the little old ladies opened a strong two in hearts on x,Qxxxxx,Qxxxxx,void (five losers). Surely "intermediate" is weaker than a strong two?? Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Sep 10 06:55:58 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 21:55:58 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: > Richard Hills: > Or is Eric referring to the daft and unLawful ACBL policy that all > Appeals Committees must completely ignore the table Director's > decisions, and rehear the entire ruling from scratch? > >From the ACBL Handbook for Appeals Committees: F. Tournament Director's Role The Tournament Director performs different functions at an Appeals Committee hearing. As the first witness, he or she presents a complete statement of the facts, issues, applicable laws and available sanctions....The Tournament Director should inform the committee when bridge judgment is not relevant by showing a copy of the applicable law or regulation. Marv: Evidently the TD's ruling is not taken into account, as Richard says. Is that important, if the above is followed? Surely it permits the TD to state whether UI was present, which the AC should accept. That is merely one of the facts provided, it is not a ruling. In the past we had a TD named Max Hardy who would dominate an AC meeting, giving his ruling and strong arguments for it. The ruling was seldom changed, if ever. Maybe the ACBL is correct in its current "daft" policy. But is that policy being followed? I don't believe it is. AC meetings at NABCs are held late at night, when TDs are snug in their beds. If the AC meetings were held near the playing area right after a session, as is done in regional championships, TDs could perform their prescribed role. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 10 07:55:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:55:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2888884.1252558551042.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Mardy Grothe, "I Never Metaphor I Didn't Like", page 295: And if you're ever accused of leaning on others for your ideas, my recommendation is to plead guilty. It might be called the Thornton Wilder Defense after his remark: "I do borrow from other writers, shamelessly! I can only say in my defense, like the woman brought before the judge on a charge of kleptomania, 'I do steal, but, your Honor, only from the very best stores.'" Thomas Dehn: [snip] >Surely "intermediate" is weaker than a strong two?? Richard Hills: But in the EBU, which was specified as the origin of this problem, "Intermediate" is always stronger than a Weak Two. EBU Orange Book, clause 5D1: A natural opening bid of two of a suit is announced by stating the range into which it falls, from the following categories. Partner of the opener says the words shown. (a) "Strong, forcing" (b) "Strong, not forcing" (c) "Intermediate" (d) "Weak" Richard Hills: And in the succeeding clause 5D2, a Precision 2C opening is defined as an example of a two bid with "Intermediate" strength. 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 Sep 10 08:08:34 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:08:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16079333.1252562914436.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Thomas Dehn: > > [snip] > > >Surely "intermediate" is weaker than a strong two?? > > Richard Hills: > > But in the EBU, which was specified as the origin of this problem, > "Intermediate" is always stronger than a Weak Two. > > EBU Orange Book, clause 5D1: > > A natural opening bid of two of a suit is announced by stating the > range into which it falls, from the following categories. Partner > of the opener says the words shown. > (a) "Strong, forcing" > (b) "Strong, not forcing" > (c) "Intermediate" > (d) "Weak" > > Richard Hills: > > And in the succeeding clause 5D2, a Precision 2C opening is defined > as an example of a two bid with "Intermediate" strength. Nitpick: this clause is about opening bids, not about jump overcalls. Yes, by logic an "intermediate" jump overcall is stronger than a minimum "weak" jump overcall. But that is not what you claimed before, you claimed that an "intermediate" jump overcall has to be stronger than a minimum 1-level overcall. Bridge is about making tricks, not about HCP. Most players consider six playing tricks to be stronger than a two level "weak" jump overcall. If a pair overcalled 2S on KQJTxxx and out, at favourable, and explained that as a "weak" jump overcall, that might be considered MI because opponents would not expect such a good hand for a nonvul "weak" jump to 2S. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Sep 10 09:54:30 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:54:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 In-Reply-To: References: <4AA6CD46.5010901@cfa.harvard.edu> <4AA722FC.7030209@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <3CB1A766-829E-4CE8-A1D3-5FFFFD4EEA97@btinternet.com> On 9 Sep 2009, at 16:26, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:37 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> >> By the way, I don't see any harm in doing the analysis in reverse >> order >> or indeed any order as long as enough steps are completed to give a >> valid ruling, but that's not the issue here. Actually I meant reverse logic, rather than reverse chronology, as indicated by Alain Gottcheiner "AG : it's worse than that. The argument can be synthetized as : "clubs were bid, therefore there was a tempo, and therefore clubs might not be bid", something about which Mrs. Russell and Epimenides would have something to say." > > As a practical matter, it is not merely harmless, but necessary. > More often than not, whether or not there was a BIT is the most > difficult and contentious of the necessary findings. It is routine > for committees to look at other aspects of these appeals first in > order to ascertain whether or not such a finding is needed, in the > hope of not being there all night. This sounds to me to be based on the US practice of having ACs start ruling from scratch, rather than using the practice of (most of?) the rest of the world by examining the TD's ruling and seeing if there are flaws in it. I'd expect it to be unusual (though not unheard-of) for an AC outside the US to overturn a TD's finding that there was a BIT. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 10 10:45:20 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:45:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <4AA60884.7090403@ulb.ac.be> <7C3D9F3F-11AF-40EC-B5E8-E7FA21191450@starpower.net> <4AA7BC0E.3000402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AA8BCA0.3080804@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >>> The ACBL tells us that in reply to a question, one should be as >>> helpful and forthcoming as possible. Any inquiry should "trigger" a >>> full explanation of the call, even when a narrower answer about some >>> specific aspect of it would literally satisfy the inquiry. >>> >>> So if a "complete and correct" (and helpful) explanation of 2D in >>> context requires an explanation of the 1S bid as a "prerequisite" to >>> understanding the meaning and implications of 2D, I don't see a >>> problem (or an irregularity) in just going ahead and explaining it. >>> >> AG : I see a problem in remembering partner what my own bid meant >> when I >> can avoid it, but perhaps this is just a view of my tortured mind. >> >> One linked question : >> >> pass >> 1D 2C* 3D 3H >> >> 2C : 5+C and 4+H (alerted but not asked about) >> >> Do you have to alert 3H, since opener won't expect any Heart honors to >> lie on his left ? And what do you explain ? >> > > I don't think this should be alerted, as it is a natural bid and > shouldn't be unexpected in context, notwithstanding that the > opponents have failed to exercise their right to determine the context. > > If they ask about 3H having not asked about 2C, I would rule "no > agreement" (assumed true for this example) Or rather "to play" > as MI by virtue of being > an incomplete, albeit correct, explanation. IMO, the "correct and > complete" (not to mention helpful) reply has to be something like, "I > showed 4+ hearts and 5+ clubs, but we have no particular agreement > about this 3H bid." > AG : I still think that I've no right to say what I've shown, as I'm not sure partner has understood (his 3H bid might be natural facing clubs and he might double their contract on the basis of our "misfit"). Whence I still prefer the answer to be "please ask about the 2C bid, and then I'll be able to answer you about 3H" , and I'd like to see this procedure being legalized. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 10 10:49:50 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:49:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA8BDAE.3000705@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Title of the autobiography of English linguist David Crystal: > > "Just a Phrase I'm Going Through" > > Matthias Berghaus: > > >>> So unless I get a yes to the first question I call 4NT >>> > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >> Up to this point, I agree with your analysis. >> >> Now we're told that the answer to question 1 is yes (remember the >> description : 6 tricks independently of honor strength), so I don't >> call 4NT. >> > > Richard Hills: > > No, Alain has misinterpreted the partnership agreement. It is not > merely two criteria: > > (a) 6 playing tricks, and > (b) no particular hcp range > > but rather Three criteria; > > (a) 6 playing tricks, and > (b) no particular hcp range, but > (c) Intermediate (more honours than for a minimum 1-level overcall) > But (b) and (c) are contradictory. IMOBO it's (a) and (b) and they (wrongly) believe it's called (c) ; if they were to call it Intermediate, I'd rule involuntary MI. If people *never* used convention names, about 30% of MI would disappear. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 10 11:00:40 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:00:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA8C038.6090206@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner (intentionally misquoted by RJBH for clarity): > > >> One linked question : >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- Pass >> 1D 2C* 3D 3H >> >> 2C : 5+C and 4+H (alerted by South but not asked about) >> >> Does North have to alert 3H, since West won't expect any heart >> honours to lie on her left? >> > > Richard Hills: > > A simple problem under the ABF Alert Rules. If East had asked > about the meaning of North's alerted overcall, South's 3H would > be obviously natural with not any additional unexpected meaning, > and hence completely non-alertable. > AG : so there is a problem here. Expert TD Eric Landau says yes, in severe tones. Expert TD Richard Hills says no, and thinks it's obvious. No wonder lay players don't know what to do. And I can see bigger problems. This happened at least twice : 1C pass 1D* 1H 1D : T-Walsh (Walsh was alertable) 1H : natural, having forgotten to ask about 1D "cue-bids" which happen to be natural must be alerted. It was impossible for them to alert, because they didn't know the 1H bid could be construed as a cue-bid (I, for one, use 1H as take-out here). It would have caused all sorts of problems to enquire about a non-alerted bid. What could I do ? Of course, all would have been solved if there were "mundane alerts" and "special alerts" (or announcements ans alerts ; suits me fine); Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 10 11:07:54 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:07:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA8C1EA.1050803@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Mardy Grothe, "I Never Metaphor I Didn't Like", page 295: > > And if you're ever accused of leaning on others for your ideas, my > recommendation is to plead guilty. It might be called the Thornton > Wilder Defense after his remark: > > "I do borrow from other writers, shamelessly! I can only say in my > defense, like the woman brought before the judge on a charge of > kleptomania, 'I do steal, but, your Honor, only from the very best > stores.'" > > Thomas Dehn: > > [snip] > > >> Surely "intermediate" is weaker than a strong two?? >> > > Richard Hills: > > But in the EBU, which was specified as the origin of this problem, > "Intermediate" is always stronger than a Weak Two. > > EBU Orange Book, clause 5D1: > > A natural opening bid of two of a suit is announced by stating the > range into which it falls, from the following categories. Partner > of the opener says the words shown. > (a) "Strong, forcing" > (b) "Strong, not forcing" > (c) "Intermediate" > (d) "Weak" > > Richard Hills: > > And in the succeeding clause 5D2, a Precision 2C opening is defined > as an example of a two bid with "Intermediate" strength. > > AG : may I quibble that 2S wasn't an opening ? Anyway, there is a contradiction between "intermediate" and "no specified honor strength", and we should address this *before* deciding what the normal bid with partner's hand is. Taking into account "intermediate" and ditching "no specified honor strength", without enquiring, will make us decide on very unstable ground. As a matter of fact, my gut feeling is that "no specified honor strength" was the truth, and "intermediate" a plain misnomer. Our judgment about ensuing bids must be based on their system, not on their words for it. Best regards Alain From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 10 12:13:11 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:13:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13B636A3214E49CA8D5AFAD8AA96F0AB@NigelPC> [Richard Hills] Sure, if you preface any blml statement with In My Opinion then it is by definition true. [Nigel] I try to distinguish "facts" from "opinions". This distinction isn't clear-cut but, IMO, other BLMLers including Richard should attempt to do the same. Such statements ("shorn of "IMO") are fair game for criticism :) From blml at arcor.de Thu Sep 10 12:33:23 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:33:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AA8C038.6090206@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AA8C038.6090206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <14911618.1252578803525.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner (intentionally misquoted by RJBH for clarity): > > > > > >> One linked question : > >> > >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >> --- --- --- Pass > >> 1D 2C* 3D 3H > >> > >> 2C : 5+C and 4+H (alerted by South but not asked about) > >> > >> Does North have to alert 3H, since West won't expect any heart > >> honours to lie on her left? > >> > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > A simple problem under the ABF Alert Rules. If East had asked > > about the meaning of North's alerted overcall, South's 3H would > > be obviously natural with not any additional unexpected meaning, > > and hence completely non-alertable. > > > AG : so there is a problem here. > > Expert TD Eric Landau says yes, in severe tones. > Expert TD Richard Hills says no, and thinks it's obvious. > > No wonder lay players don't know what to do. > > > And I can see bigger problems. This happened at least twice : > > 1C pass 1D* 1H > > 1D : T-Walsh (Walsh was alertable) > 1H : natural, having forgotten to ask about 1D > > "cue-bids" which happen to be natural must be alerted. Looks like bad alert rules to me. Hard for players to fix them at the table. > It was impossible for them to alert, because they didn't know the 1H bid > could be construed as a cue-bid (I, for one, use 1H as take-out here). > It would have caused all sorts of problems to enquire about a > non-alerted bid. > What could I do ? As a player, I would ask LHO something like "what type of hands would overcall 1H here". First step for the TD is to investigate whether their agreement really is that 1H is natural if 1D was T-Walsh. This smells a bit like a "dog that didn't bark" variation of the "are those real clubs?" question. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 10 12:36:09 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:36:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <13B636A3214E49CA8D5AFAD8AA96F0AB@NigelPC> References: <13B636A3214E49CA8D5AFAD8AA96F0AB@NigelPC> Message-ID: <4AA8D699.9080303@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Richard Hills] > Sure, if you preface any blml statement with In My Opinion then it is by > definition true. > AG : only if one doesn't lie, of course. > [Nigel] > I try to distinguish "facts" from "opinions". This distinction isn't > clear-cut but, IMO, other BLMLers including Richard should attempt to do the > same. Such statements ("shorn of "IMO") are fair game for criticism :) > > AG : I'm with Nigel here. Sometimes we mention TFLB, or local rules, or describe a live case, and the facts will usually be true. Sometimes we give an opinion about what a ruling should be, or express preferences about what the rules should be, and it's useful to add 'IMO' , or one of its variants, in order to distinguish those statements from those of the former type. Except, of course, that the 'H' in 'IMHO' will often be a lie ;-) Best regards Alain From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 10 12:55:59 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:55:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87A62F107FF749D5B7AF007F15AFA56D@NigelPC> [Richard Hills] I observed the very hard work put in by the Drafting Committee (especially by Grattan Endicott) and I can testify how they were always considering the interests of players when writing, rewriting and re-rewriting the multitudinous drafts of the 2007 Lawbook. [Nigel Guthrie] We are all grateful to the WBFLC. The failure to obtain a consensus of player-views may not be its fault: As far as I remember, Grattan said that the WBF is responsible to its NBO members. Hence the WBFLC solicited NBO views. Naturally, NBOs comprise administrators and directors rather than ordinary players. NBOs could have consulted ordinary players but, according to BLMLers, few (if any) did. For example, senior directors in BLML complained that they weren't consulted. No acquaintance of mine was consulted :( From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 10 13:41:42 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:41:42 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <14680544.1252582902953.JavaMail.root@ps28> >----Original Message---- >From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk >Date: 10/09/2009 11:55 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >[Richard Hills] >I observed the very hard work put in by the Drafting Committee (especially >by Grattan Endicott) and I can testify how they were always considering the >interests of players when writing, rewriting and re-rewriting the >multitudinous drafts of the 2007 Lawbook. > >[Nigel Guthrie] >We are all grateful to the WBFLC. The failure to obtain a consensus of >player-views may not be its fault: As far as I remember, Grattan said that >the WBF is responsible to its NBO members. Hence the WBFLC solicited NBO >views. Naturally, NBOs comprise administrators and directors rather than >ordinary players. NBOs could have consulted ordinary players but, according >to BLMLers, few (if any) did. For example, senior directors in BLML >complained that they weren't consulted. No acquaintance of mine was >consulted :( > +=+ You are very kind, gentlemen. Add that the WBFLC as a whole is made up of players and tournament direcrors of a wide variety of experience, in different parts of the world, and it may be realized that they are trying hard to do what is good for the game. ''The game' is the players. Within hours now I hope to give you the results of our efforts here. The world being what it is, I expect a mixed reception. I will copy the minutes to Henk (as attachments) and perhaps he will find a way of presenting them on this site. When Anna Gudge arrives home she will circulate the minutes to akll NBOs and Zones as well as to her long list of TDs worldwide. I do not see what more can be done to make them available. Adam Wildavsky was in our meetings and contributed much so the ACBL is particularly well served. The most intensively debated subjects were Law 21 and Law 20F. Grattan +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 10 13:56:07 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:56:07 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <31093977.1252583767161.JavaMail.root@ps28> > (Richard Hills) >I observed the very hard work put in by the Drafting Committee >(especially by Grattan Endicott) and I can testify how they were >always considering the interests of players when writing, rewriting >and re-rewriting the multitudinous drafts of the 2007 Lawbook. > > +=+ ..... and still we missed something, inevitably. We have faced up tothe fact that Law 20F4 sends the Director to Law 21B. Law 21B omits to tell the Director what to do in these particular circumstances with the auction still in progress. We have solved half the problem, leaving the other half to RAs. Grattan +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 10 15:39:31 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:39:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books In-Reply-To: <16079333.1252562914436.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <16079333.1252562914436.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <28636960-D9E0-481C-AE66-8868D5472FEC@starpower.net> On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:08 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Yes, by logic an "intermediate" jump overcall > is stronger than a minimum "weak" jump overcall. > But that is not what you claimed before, you claimed > that an "intermediate" jump overcall has > to be stronger than a minimum 1-level overcall. And correctly so. The key identifying characteristic of an intermediate jump overcall is that it sets an upper bound for a simple overcall. If you agree to play 1C-2S intermediate, you perforce define 1C-1S as promising a hand not strong enough (in high cards or suit quality or both) to bid 2S. Conversely, if you agree to play 1C-2S as weak, 2S promises a hand not strong enough to bid 1S. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 10 15:58:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:58:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <4AA8C038.6090206@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AA8C038.6090206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sep 10, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> A simple problem under the ABF Alert Rules. If East had asked >> about the meaning of North's alerted overcall, South's 3H would >> be obviously natural with not any additional unexpected meaning, >> and hence completely non-alertable. > > AG : so there is a problem here. > > Expert TD Eric Landau says yes, in severe tones. > Expert TD Richard Hills says no, and thinks it's obvious. > > No wonder lay players don't know what to do. I don't deny that there is a problem here, but, to set the record straight, I am in agreement with Richard on this question. On Sep 9, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > I don't think this should be alerted, as it is a natural bid and > shouldn't be unexpected in context, notwithstanding that the > opponents have failed to exercise their right to determine the > context. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 10 16:24:38 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:24:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? In-Reply-To: <14680544.1252582902953.JavaMail.root@ps28> References: <14680544.1252582902953.JavaMail.root@ps28> Message-ID: <9DCD2B3D-3097-4864-8BA1-679C51FC267E@starpower.net> On Sep 10, 2009, at 7:41 AM, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ You are very kind, gentlemen. Add that the WBFLC as a whole is > made > up of players and tournament direcrors of a wide variety of > experience, in > different parts of the world, and it may be realized that they are > trying > hard to do what is good for the game. ''The game' is the players. I truly wish to believe this, but Grattan has himself told us otherwise on numerous occasions. If the WBF's motivation were to "do what is good for the game", and if it truly believed that "'the game' is the players", then it would dedicate itself to doing what is good for the players, which would mean accepting that "the players" are the constituency the WBF exists to serve. We are told repeatedly, however, that the WBF considers its member NBOs, not their individual players, as the constituency it exists to serve; it explicitly leaves the job of "doing what is good for the players" to its constituent NBOs, to which it delegates the responsibiliy for serving the interests of their respective memberships. Thus the WBF, by policy, willfully blinds itself to the plain fact that the interests of the majority of ordinary players and the interests of the officials who run their NBOs do not necessarily coincide. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 10 16:33:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:33:03 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? Message-ID: <32179851.1252593183879.JavaMail.root@ps28> >----Original Message---- >From: ehaa at starpower.net >Date: 10/09/2009 15:24 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? > >On Sep 10, 2009, at 7:41 AM, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >> +=+ You are very kind, gentlemen. Add that the WBFLC as a whole is >> made >> up of players and tournament direcrors of a wide variety of >> experience, in >> different parts of the world, and it may be realized that they are >> trying >> hard to do what is good for the game. ''The game' is the players. > >I truly wish to believe this, but Grattan has himself told us >otherwise on numerous occasions. > >If the WBF's motivation were to "do what is good for the game", and >if it truly believed that "'the game' is the players", then it would >dedicate itself to doing what is good for the players, which would >mean accepting that "the players" are the constituency the WBF exists >to serve. We are told repeatedly, however, that the WBF considers >its member NBOs, not their individual players, as the constituency it >exists to serve; it explicitly leaves the job of "doing what is good >for the players" to its constituent NBOs, to which it delegates the >responsibiliy for serving the interests of their respective memberships. > >Thus the WBF, by policy, willfully blinds itself to the plain fact >that the interests of the majority of ordinary players and the >interests of the officials who run their NBOs do not necessarily >coincide. > +=+ I cannot help feeling this is a mean-minded attitude. Also in a democracy one only has to obtain a majority to remove those in power. So I conclude Eric is in a minority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 10 17:08:56 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:08:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? In-Reply-To: <32179851.1252593183879.JavaMail.root@ps28> References: <32179851.1252593183879.JavaMail.root@ps28> Message-ID: <6C319DE3-53BD-41B5-9929-6E7884F9C355@starpower.net> On Sep 10, 2009, at 10:33 AM, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> From: ehaa at starpower.net >> >> Thus the WBF, by policy, willfully blinds itself to the plain fact >> that the interests of the majority of ordinary players and the >> interests of the officials who run their NBOs do not necessarily >> coincide. > > +=+ I cannot help feeling this is a mean-minded attitude. Also in > a democracy one only has to obtain a majority to remove those > in power. So I conclude Eric is in a minority. The explicit premise of Grattan's syllogism may be true, but his implicit premise, which is that the NBO to which I belong is run as a democracy, is false, and thus his conclusion does not follow. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Sep 10 17:29:45 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:29:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <14680544.1252582902953.JavaMail.root@ps28> References: <14680544.1252582902953.JavaMail.root@ps28> Message-ID: On 10 Sep 2009, at 12:41, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > When Anna Gudge arrives home she will circulate the minutes to akll > NBOs and Zones as well as to her long list of TDs worldwide. I do > not see > what more can be done to make them available. You omit to say that they are available on the WBF website - the obvious place for an interested person to start looking. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090910/8c56c331/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Sep 10 17:30:45 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:30:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? In-Reply-To: <32179851.1252593183879.JavaMail.root@ps28> References: <32179851.1252593183879.JavaMail.root@ps28> Message-ID: <702F273A-2727-4C47-B727-65D872469A35@btinternet.com> On 10 Sep 2009, at 15:33, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ I cannot help feeling this is a mean-minded attitude. Also in > a democracy one only has to obtain a majority to remove those > in power. So I conclude Eric is in a minority. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ There is of course an alternative conclusion that could be drawn. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090910/00413fa2/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Sep 10 18:35:54 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:35:54 -0700 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <31093977.1252583767161.JavaMail.root@ps28> Message-ID: <2448A1B7CAA8478D852E4D3494432788@MARVLAPTOP> Grattan: . > +=+ ..... and still we missed something, inevitably. We have > faced up tothe fact that Law 20F4 sends the Director to > Law 21B. > Law 21B omits to tell the Director what to do in these > particular circumstances with the auction still in progress. Then why the required TD call? So he/she can state the pertinent laws to the non-offenders. Otherwise nothing is done until end of play. WTP?? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Sep 10 18:40:15 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:40:15 -0700 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <14680544.1252582902953.JavaMail.root@ps28> Message-ID: <132E1F19F9FC442F855E35838B9F5356@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Gordon Rainsford" > > Grattan: >> When Anna Gudge arrives home she will circulate the minutes to >> akll >> NBOs and Zones as well as to her long list of TDs worldwide. I do >> not see what more can be done to make them available. > > You omit to say that they are available on the WBF website - the > obvious place for an interested person to start looking. Will be available, but not yet. I just looked. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 10 19:56:47 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:56:47 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <9389751.1252605407383.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com >Date: 10/09/2009 >> >> You omit to say that they are available on the WBF website - the >> obvious place for an interested person to start looking. > >Will be available, but not yet. I just looked. > Anna Gudge attends to all that after she returns home - and probably after a couple of days R & R plus dealing with accumulated orrespondence. The minutes will appear in due course on both the WBF website and the ecats.co.uk website. Meanwhile subscribers here will learn something sooner than that. ~ G ~ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 11 00:07:51 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:07:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Propiniquity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Law 40B2(a), conclusion: ".....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)." Imps Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 4NT(1) Pass 5C (2) Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass (1) Acol Blackwood, asking for specific aces (2) Specifically zero aces You, South, hold: J6 832 Q952 9754 What is your opening lead? Does your lead change depending on the style of your iniquitous RHO? My home suburb of "Belconnen" does not have as euphonious a name as "Silver Springs", but my home does have the advantage of propinquity to the Canberra Bridge Club, where the local Director also happens to be Chief Director of Australia, and therefore interested in the correct interpretation of the Laws. So a few months ago I posted a long-standing unresolved issue to blml, then mentioned it to the Chief Director that night. He was so impressed by the point that he prevailed upon his Zone 7 Laws Committee colleagues to add it to the agenda for the Sao Paulo WBF LC meetings. Now that the WBF Executive has ratified the Sao Paulo minutes, I can reveal the outcome of my iniquitous propinquity: >Mr. Wignall submitted two questions on behalf of Zone 7: > >(a) It was agreed that in no circumstances can the application of >Law 69B2 lead to a weighted score. The law requires that "such >trick" shall be transferred or not transferred as determined by the >Director's ascertainment of facts. [second question snipped] 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 Sep 11 01:51:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:51:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Lettuce drive a steak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: George Orwell, Animal Farm: "Four legs good, two legs bad." The heart of a blml vampire's philosophy: "Creation of MI good, creation of UI bad." The current 2007 Law 73D1 does not quite refute the blml vampire, as Law 73D1's third sentence currently says: "Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction." However, the Sao Paulo meeting of the WBF LC announced their intent to drive a steak through the heart of the blml vampire, proposing that the 2018 edition of Law 73D1's third sentence will say: "Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, blml werewolf -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Sep 11 02:10:21 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:10:21 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Lettuce drive a steak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <3B50A119FA294582A6736BE36000E765@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills: > > George Orwell, Animal Farm: > > "Four legs good, two legs bad." > > The heart of a blml vampire's philosophy: > > "Creation of MI good, creation of UI bad." > > The current 2007 Law 73D1 does not quite refute the blml vampire, > as > Law 73D1's third sentence currently says: > > "Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a > call or play is made is not in itself an infraction." > > However, the Sao Paulo meeting of the WBF LC announced their > intent > to drive a steak through the heart of the blml vampire, proposing > that the 2018 edition of Law 73D1's third sentence will say: > > "Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a > call or play is made is not an infraction." > Shucks, I was hoping they would split that infiinitive in 2018, as a move toward normal English. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 11 03:27:53 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:27:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>Definitely watch the video of the auction when available. >> >>My guess is that it would be a mistake for a director to >>assume he/she can tell when people are telling the truth >>or not. [snip] >>I would be glad to hear otherwise. The Effect of Anxiety on Time Estimation, William H. Clark, Fairleigh Dickinson University: >the present study examined the effect of anxiety on the >estimation of eight different time intervals. Twenty five >male undergraduate students were required to estimate time >intervals under an anxiety condition in which shock was >administered for inaccurate time estimations, and a non >anxiety condition in which no shock was given. The results >indicated that there was no significant difference between >the mean time estimates under anxiety and non-anxiety >conditions. Previous findings of anxiety producing >overestimation of time intervals were not supported. It was >suggested that overestimation of time intervals is related >to the subjects' control over the object of anxiety (i.e. >shock). When subjects were able to avoid shock through >accurate time estimations, overstimulation did not occur. Doug Couchman: Oh wonderful, thank you. The abstract doesn't have the answer to the secondary question regarding how much people overestimate by, but it does have something better: a partial solution to directors' problem about translating players' time estimates. Apparently, if we subject them to electric shock when they estimate wrong, we can eliminate the systematic bias toward overestimation in cases where the player is anxious. Putting this into practice may take work. Doug 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 Sep 11 03:47:48 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:47:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AA8BDAE.3000705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Title of best-selling Marty Bergen book: "Points-Schmoints". >>(b) no particular hcp range, but >>(c) Intermediate (more honours than for a minimum 1-level overcall) >But (b) and (c) are contradictory. In My Very Humble Opinion, not so. See this post's prolegomena. Your obedient servant, Richard Hills, Esq -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Sep 11 05:57:45 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:57:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <28636960-D9E0-481C-AE66-8868D5472FEC@starpower.net> Message-ID: By definition a nutty bridge book must be bizarre. Hence Charles Goren's "Bridge in a Nutshell" is... :-) :-) Sven, 1st March 2003: >>Well, how do you define the term "agreement"? >>I don't need the law of contracts to assume that >>if I agree with my partner to play the system >>described in Goren's "Bridge in a nutshell" I >>cannot afterwards say for instance: "Oh, I >>thought a 2D response to a 1NT opening bid was >>transfer to hearts, I always use it that way" >> >>Sven Richard, 2nd March 2003: >If "Bridge in a nutshell" defined a 2D response >to 1NT was natural, and one member of the >partnership believed that a 2D response to 1NT >was natural *but* the other member of the >partnership believed that "Bridge in a nutshell" >defined a 2D response to 1NT as a transfer, >*then* the partnership does not have an >agreement. What Goren actually wrote is >irrelevant - the law of contracts maxim is >"ignorance is no excuse", but the law of bridge >maxim is "ignorance means no agreement". > >Best wishes > >Richard Grattan, 3rd March 2003: +=+ And to disclose an agreed meaning that is not agreed is MI. +=+ 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 Sep 11 06:52:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:52:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Kojak's pappenheimers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 6th March 2003: +=+ Touching Law 49 we should bear in mind that the criterion is "could possibly have seen its face". This is not synonymous with having seen the suit/rank of the card. If the player has seen that it is a black card then the player has seen its face = this knowledge is not obtained otherwise. Evidence that one or both of the opponents has seen the face of the card is not proof in itself that the defender could have seen its face; the Director has to work a little more diligently than that on establishing the facts of the incident. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Ton Kooijman, 6th March 2003 How much more? In the course book I would use if it had been written there will not be an instruction to ask other defender whether he/she saw the card. While the answer "yes" would help a lot the answer "no" is useless, in the real world it is. And when declarer and dummy have seen the card the player must have done a marvellous trick to prevent his partner from seeing it (as dropping it on his lap, etc. ). So my decision you can guess now. Let me tell you a story that happened in Valkenburg 1980, the teams Olympiad. We were with 5 junior TD's from the Netherlands there, promising, eager guys you know. So I was one of them. And we were directing under guidance of the TD celebrities, one of which was Kojak, whom I met for the first time there. He was guiding me in the closed room of the open event. We were called at a table were two teams from central America were playing. One of the defenders had shown a card OOT, but had not really played it. And then declarer said that since the other partner was not paying attention to the play at that moment he was sure that partner hadn't seen this card (the answer "no" above given by declarer in this case). Kojak took his lawbook and made clear that the question whether he did or did not see the card was irrelevant, it was the position the card was held that mattered. So played card etc. Walking back together he told me that in case he had made another ruling he could have been sure that the captain of declarer's team would have approached him later, asking whether he had become mad giving such ruling. He also told me that declarer's statement had nothing to do with facts, was just daylight politeness defined by culture. Yes you need to know your "pappenheimers" (no translation other than "people" known to me). ton 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 Sep 11 07:34:09 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:34:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] BLML archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 5th March 2003: >>+=+ Before I leap into the quicksand perhaps we should >>clarify what we are talking about. "LHO exposes a card" >> - 'exposes' or 'plays'? Law 62B1 only applies to a >>withdrawn revoke card; to be a revoke card it must have >>been played to the trick. This would include a >>compulsory play under 45C1 if applicable*. >> If it is exposed, but not "in the normal course >>of play or application of law*", we are in Law 49. >> Could we just fit what is being said within this >>framework, so that I may understand the problem? >> ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills, 7th March 2003: >In my opinion, it seems that: > >a) Law 45C1 does not apply when defender's partner is > under the table; neither does Law 49; > >b) Therefore, in Alain's scenario, LHO cannot "expose" a > card; > >c) However, in Alain's scenario LHO can play a card - Law > 45A - reaching the unusual state that LHO has a played > card which is simultaneously not an exposed card; > >d) We now reach paradox if we assume LHO immediately > corrects their revoke before RHO emerges from under > the table. Law 62B1 states that the played card > becomes a penalty card, cross-referencing Law 50. But > Law 50 defines a penalty card as a prematurely exposed > card, which this is not. > >As TD I would resolve this paradox by eating the card in >a club sandwich. Grattan Endicott, 7th March 2003: +=+ The statement in Law 50 is not a whole definition of a penalty card. It says that a card prematurely exposed etc is etc., but it does not exclude the possibility that, if the relevant law say so, a penalty card may not be something other than that. When another law says that a card is a penalty card the reference then to Law 50 places the treatment of it under Law 50 and is concerned with the manner in which the card, being a penalty card, is to be treated. The Director applies the laws of physics (though he may not actually realize it) when deciding whether a defender's partner could possibly see a card placed in the position in which the Director has determined it was placed. If the partner is in the bathroom or under the table at the time it is unlikely that it would be thought possible for him to see the card. Don't eat the card, it might be a loose diamond. Cheers, ~ 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 Fri Sep 11 07:55:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:55:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Dlr: South Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- ---- --- Pass 1D X 3NT Pass Pass Pass You, South, hold: 652 96 9732 J976 What do you lead at imps? What do you lead at matchpoints? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Sep 11 09:56:54 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:56:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 Sep 2009, at 06:55, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- ---- --- Pass > 1D X 3NT Pass > Pass Pass > > You, South, hold: > > 652 > 96 > 9732 > J976 > > What do you lead at imps? > What do you lead at matchpoints? H9 in either case. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 11 10:08:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:08:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. Former blmler Kaima subjected EW to criticism: >>>>>>..... >>>>>>EW (whose character was defined by their calling >>>>>>director in this [2007 Law 16B] case) >>>>>>..... >>>>>>I hope director did not condone EW's conduct, and >>>>>>that he applied education/procedural penalty or >>>>>>whatever in his power, to emphasize to EW that this >>>>>>sort of litigious behaviour is not part of the game. Current blmler Anne Jones, March 2003 response: >>>>>What a pity there are no procedural penalties >>>>>available to this list. Kaima's defamation of E/W for >>>>>calling the TD is an abomination..... Current blmler Steve Willner, March 2003 support: >>>>.....In any case, criticizing EW for asking for a ruling >>>>is way out of line..... Current blmler Sven Pran, April 2003 concurrence: >>>A fundamental rule in the laws is that no player may >>>object to the Director being summoned if another player >>>wants the Director to the table. Former blmler Richard Hills, April 2003 on-the-other-hand: >>I cannot find any such Law. Former blmler Ed Reppert, April 2003 Sven paraphrase: >Perhaps it would have been better had Sven said that "it is >a fundamental principle of the laws that when a director may >be needed, no player may object to another player calling >him". Former blmler Richard Hills, April 2003 beg-to-differ: There is a difference between, "when a director *may* be needed" and "when a director *is* needed". For other issues, it has been argued that actions are extraneous and possibly illegal when not specifically allowed by the Laws. One could argue that summoning the TD in a circumstance extraneous to Law 9 or Law 16B, is automatically an etiquette infraction of Law 74A2. Furthermore, the Law 73A1 requirement for calls and plays to be the only communication between partners could be infracted by an unnecessary TD call. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 11 10:18:54 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:18:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434CE78B7FA0424E8683839A019DC6AF@NigelPC> [Sven, 1st March 2003] Well, how do you define the term "agreement"? I don't need the law of contracts to assume that if I agree with my partner to play the system described in Goren's "Bridge in a nutshell" I cannot afterwards say for instance: "Oh, I thought a 2D response to a 1NT opening bid was transfer to hearts, I always use it that way" [Richard, 2nd March 2003] If "Bridge in a nutshell" defined a 2D response to 1NT was natural, and one member of the partnership believed that a 2D response to 1NT was natural *but* the other member of the partnership believed that "Bridge in a nutshell" defined a 2D response to 1NT as a transfer, *then* the partnership does not have an agreement. What Goren actually wrote is irrelevant - the law of contracts maxim is "ignorance is no excuse", but the law of bridge maxim is "ignorance means no agreement". [Grattan, 3rd March 2003] +=+ And to disclose an agreed meaning that is not agreed is MI. +=+ [Nigel] If Richard and Grattan correctly interpret this law, then, it should be changed, IMO. In normal English, a mutual agreement remains an agreement, even when you misunderstand it or forget it. I feel that your opponents and the director should accept such an agreement, especially when backed by hard-copy evidence (system-card, system-notes, or system-book). Of course, you may unilaterally depart from such an agreement but, IMO, the director should treat that as a psych. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 11 10:28:04 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:28:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] Dlr: South Vul: North-South you hold 652 96 9732 J976 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- ---- --- Pass 1D X 3NT Pass Pass Pass What do you lead at imps? What do you lead at matchpoints? [Nigel] IMO spade = 10, club = 7, heart = 5, diamond = 1. At pairs, I demote the heart further. I hope that partner has a strong 4414 or 4423. If partner has a good 5+ suit, it is more likely to be clubs than either major. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 11 10:49:18 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:49:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <14911618.1252578803525.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <4AA8C038.6090206@ulb.ac.be> <14911618.1252578803525.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4AAA0F0E.8010503@ulb.ac.be> Thomas : > > >> It was impossible for them to alert, because they didn't know the 1H bid >> could be construed as a cue-bid (I, for one, use 1H as take-out here). >> It would have caused all sorts of problems to enquire about a >> non-alerted bid. >> What could I do ? >> > > As a player, I would ask LHO something like > "what type of hands would overcall 1H here". > AG : but we're told we should avoid this when the bid wasn't alerted. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 11 11:03:41 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:03:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AAA126D.6070501@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Title of best-selling Marty Bergen book: "Points-Schmoints". > > >>> (b) no particular hcp range, but >>> (c) Intermediate (more honours than for a minimum 1-level overcall) >>> > > >> But (b) and (c) are contradictory. >> > > In My Very Humble Opinion, not so. See this post's prolegomena. > AG : Well, there seems to exist an official definition for 'intermediate', so we have to use it, schmoints notwithstanding. Some bids are defined in terms of playing strength *and* defensive values. I wouldn't call x - KQJxxxxxx - x - xx an Acol 2-bid, even with 8 fairly sure tricks. Anyway, those who base their choice of bid only on 'intermediate' and not on '6 tricks, no schmoint range', when we're told both, are twisting the problem; Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 11 11:08:08 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:08:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AAA1378.5050806@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- ---- --- Pass > 1D X 3NT Pass > Pass Pass > > You, South, hold: > > 652 > 96 > 9732 > J976 > > What do you lead at imps? > AG : spades, the suit in which we're most likely to hold 7 cards Unless partner uses to double with 54 majors, in which case a heart is a possibility, but far-fetched even so.. > What do you lead at matchpoints? > > AG :a spade, 100%. I'm not desperate, because I stop clubs and partner might well score a shortish diamond honor, so I'm making a standard lead. Which spade depends on our agreements (the 5 in mine) WAG : partner took a long time, then passed, in order to restrain us from making a spade lead - he wanted a heart. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 11 12:07:42 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:07:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5679829.1252663662305.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- ---- --- Pass > 1D X 3NT Pass > Pass Pass > > You, South, hold: > > 652 > 96 > 9732 > J976 > > What do you lead at imps? > What do you lead at matchpoints? At IMPs, I try to beat it, at MPs, I try to limit overtricks. A case could be made that on this hand even at IMPs one should try to limit overtricks. I'd like to know whether RHO can hold a four card major for this bidding. At IMPs, if yes, I expect him to have four hearts, and will try a spade. At IMPs, if no, I will lead a heart. At MPs, I lead a spade, looks least likely to give away something. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 11 12:18:07 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:18:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books In-Reply-To: <28636960-D9E0-481C-AE66-8868D5472FEC@starpower.net> References: <28636960-D9E0-481C-AE66-8868D5472FEC@starpower.net> <16079333.1252562914436.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <13966924.1252664287064.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:08 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Yes, by logic an "intermediate" jump overcall > > is stronger than a minimum "weak" jump overcall. > > But that is not what you claimed before, you claimed > > that an "intermediate" jump overcall has > > to be stronger than a minimum 1-level overcall. > > And correctly so. The key identifying characteristic of an > intermediate jump overcall is that it sets an upper bound for a > simple overcall. If you agree to play 1C-2S intermediate, you > perforce define 1C-1S as promising a hand not strong enough (in high > cards or suit quality or both) to bid 2S. > > Conversely, if you agree to play 1C-2S as weak, 2S promises a hand > not strong enough to bid 1S. Obviously most hands that make an "intermediate" jump overcall are no longer candidates for a 1-level overcall. But that is not an implication on strength, it is not an upper bound on a 1-level overcall; you simply would not make an "intermediate" jump overcall on a four card suit or a weak five card suit, while those might be sufficient for a 1-level overcall. Another possible approach is to overcall on the 1 -level with both hands weaker and hands stronger than the "intermediate" jump overcall, leaving the middle ground to the "intermediate" jump. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 11 12:33:33 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:33:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills quoted...] [... Kaima] [snip] EW (whose character was defined by their calling director in this [2007 Law 16B] case) [..snip..] I hope director did not condone EW's conduct, and that he applied education/procedural penalty or whatever in his power, to emphasize to EW that this sort of litigious behaviour is not part of the game. [... Anne Jones, March 2003 response] What a pity there are no procedural penalties available to this list. Kaima's defamation of E/W for calling the TD is an abomination [snip] [... Steve Willner, March 2003 support] [snip] In any case, criticizing EW for asking for a ruling is way out of line..... [... Sven Pran, April 2003 concurrence] A fundamental rule in the laws is that no player may object to the Director being summoned if another player wants the Director to the table. [... Richard Hills, April 2003 on-the-other-hand] I cannot find any such Law. [... Former blmler Ed Reppert, April 2003 Sven paraphrase] Perhaps it would have been better had Sven said that "it is a fundamental principle of the laws that when a director may be needed, no player may object to another player calling him". [... Richard Hills, April 2003 beg-to-differ] There is a difference between, "when a director *may* be needed" and "when a director *is* needed". For other issues, it has been argued that actions are extraneous and possibly illegal when not specifically allowed by the Laws. One could argue that summoning the TD in a circumstance extraneous to Law 9 or Law 16B, is automatically an etiquette infraction of Law 74A2. Furthermore, the Law 73A1 requirement for calls and plays to be the only communication between partners could be infracted by an unnecessary TD call. [Nigel] A practical example, which BLMLers may find amusing: I summoned up courage to play in my first "Speedball" at this year's Brighton Congress. My enjoyment was marred by one incident, arguably my own fault. In his hurry to play, my RHO failed to follow suit to my LHO's lead. He corrected his mistake immediately but I foolishly called the director. My LHO protested, "Isn't it cheating to call the director in a speedball?". The director answered "No" but I felt like a character in an H.E. Bates cartoon -- *The Man who called the Director in a Speedball*. I didn't hear the director's ruling because LHO continued "You're a cheat". The director told her, "You can't say that" but she kept repeating her accusation. RHO attempted to pour oil on troubled waters, admonishing his partner "You are as bad is he is -- taking this fun event seriously" and he conceded the rest of the tricks! I don't know whether the director approved RHO's ruling because we had to move for the next round. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 11 13:11:54 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:11:54 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Lettuce drive a steak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <25031472.1252667514875.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 11/09/2009 0:51 >To: >Subj: [BLML] Lettuce drive a steak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >George Orwell, Animal Farm: > >"Four legs good, two legs bad." > >The heart of a blml vampire's philosophy: > >"Creation of MI good, creation of UI bad." > >The current 2007 Law 73D1 does not quite refute the blml vampire, as >Law 73D1's third sentence currently says: > >"Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a >call or play is made is not in itself an infraction." > >However, the Sao Paulo meeting of the WBF LC announced their intent >to drive a steak through the heart of the blml vampire, proposing >that the 2018 edition of Law 73D1's third sentence will say: > >"Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a >call or play is made is not an infraction." > The intention is that the thought should be discussed, There is support for removal of ?n itself'; some have not stated a view and in my case I have not yet thought throuhj the implications. Grattan +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 11 13:45:00 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:45:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lettuce drive a steak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <25031472.1252667514875.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <25031472.1252667514875.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <000001ca32d5$4b776860$e2663920$@com> [GE] "Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction." [DALB] You mean it's all right to think as long as you don't do it on purpose? David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 11 13:35:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:35:27 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? Message-ID: <3194882.1252668927585.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: ehaa at starpower.net >Date: 10/09/2009 16:08 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? > >On Sep 10, 2009, at 10:33 AM, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >>> From: ehaa at starpower.net >>> >>> Thus the WBF, by policy, willfully blinds itself to the plain fact >>> that the interests of the majority of ordinary players and the >>> interests of the officials who run their NBOs do not necessarily >>> coincide. >> >> +=+ I cannot help feeling this is a mean-minded attitude. Also in >> a democracy one only has to obtain a majority to remove those >> in power. So I conclude Eric is in a minority. > >The explicit premise of Grattan's syllogism may be true, but his >implicit premise, which is that the NBO to which I belong is run as a >democracy, is false, and thus his conclusion does not follow. < +=+ Well, Eric, if there is truth in what you say it is beyond my ken. I have always assumed America to be nearly as democratic as my own country. But let me add, the Berlin wall was brought down by the people it affected. External action to bring down the Iraqi dicttator has not had the benefit of universal benign acclamation. Grattan +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 11 14:16:41 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:16:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? In-Reply-To: <3194882.1252668927585.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <3194882.1252668927585.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <26653564.1252671401758.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> "grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk" wrote: > >----Original Message---- > >From: ehaa at starpower.net > >Date: 10/09/2009 16:08 > >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >Subj: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? > > > >On Sep 10, 2009, at 10:33 AM, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > >>> From: ehaa at starpower.net > >>> > >>> Thus the WBF, by policy, willfully blinds itself to the plain fact > >>> that the interests of the majority of ordinary players and the > >>> interests of the officials who run their NBOs do not necessarily > >>> coincide. > >> > >> +=+ I cannot help feeling this is a mean-minded attitude. Also in > >> a democracy one only has to obtain a majority to remove those > >> in power. So I conclude Eric is in a minority. > > > >The explicit premise of Grattan's syllogism may be true, but his > >implicit premise, which is that the NBO to which I belong is run as a > >democracy, is false, and thus his conclusion does not follow. > < > +=+ Well, Eric, if there is truth in what you say it is beyond my ken. > I have always assumed America to be nearly as democratic as my > own country. But let me add, the Berlin wall was brought down > by the people it affected. External action to bring down the Iraqi > dicttator has not had the benefit of universal benign acclamation. > Grattan +=+ America is about as democratic as Italy. I believe Eric was making a statement about the ACBL being nondemocratic. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 11 14:21:50 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:21:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lettuce drive a steak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001ca32d5$4b776860$e2663920$@com> References: <25031472.1252667514875.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> <000001ca32d5$4b776860$e2663920$@com> Message-ID: <001201ca32da$709283f0$51b78bd0$@no> On Behalf Of David Burn > [GE] > > "Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is > made is not an infraction." > > [DALB] > > You mean it's all right to think as long as you don't do it on purpose? A couple of years ago I noticed (on Bridgemate control) one table being very late in completing a round so I walked over to that table to see what was going on. I found declarer looking at his own cards, looking at dummy, looking at his own cards, looking at dummy . . . . . Apparently this had been going on for some time so I intervened and told him that he was delaying the whole event and that I couldn't allow him more time to think without playing. The response? "I am not exactly thinking"! (The only time in my career as Director that I have been lost for words) Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 11 14:23:52 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:23:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books In-Reply-To: <13966924.1252664287064.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <28636960-D9E0-481C-AE66-8868D5472FEC@starpower.net> <16079333.1252562914436.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <13966924.1252664287064.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4AAA4158.7090602@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Another possible approach is to overcall on the > 1 -level with both hands weaker and hands stronger > than the "intermediate" jump overcall, leaving > the middle ground to the "intermediate" jump. > > AG : I'd say this is standard. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 11 14:39:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:39:40 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Lettuce drive a steak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <16528596.1252672780549.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: dalburn at btopenworld.com >Date: 11/09/2009 12:45 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Lettuce drive a steak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >[GE] > >"Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction." > >[DALB] > >You mean it's all right to think as long as you don't do it on purpose? > >David Burn >London, England > +=+ David attributes to me words from the typewriter of Richard Hills. I made it clear I had not been thinking at all. After all, what is thr purpose? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 11 14:43:42 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:43:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? In-Reply-To: <26653564.1252671401758.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <3194882.1252668927585.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> <26653564.1252671401758.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: [Grattan Endicot] +=+ Well, Eric, if there is truth in what you say it is beyond my ken. I have always assumed America to be nearly as democratic as my own country. But let me add, the Berlin wall was brought down by the people it affected. External action to bring down the Iraqi dictator has not had the benefit of universal benign acclamation. [Thomas Jefferson] "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" [Winston Churchill - again over the top and of marginal relevance - but good stuff] If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. [Nigel] Reluctantly, I concede that Grattan is right. The power is within our grasp. The problem is that we bridge-players are an apathetic bunch, happy to enjoy our wonderful game, in spite of its faults. 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. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 11 14:51:26 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:51:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? In-Reply-To: <3194882.1252668927585.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <3194882.1252668927585.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <64A6890D6B144E44AB954F2B2FA06BD5@NigelPC> [Nige1] ... but I felt like a character in an H.E. Bates cartoon -- *The Man who called the Director in a Speedball*. [Nigel] Sorry that should be "H M BATEMAN" not "H E BATES". From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Sep 11 18:47:42 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:47:42 -0700 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? References: <3194882.1252668927585.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <21732C3D9A3243BDA46E4E2DE7BED6D9@MARVLAPTOP> Eric wrote: >>The explicit premise of Grattan's syllogism may be true, but his >>implicit premise, which is that the NBO to which I belong ... Which NBO would that be? Are you a member of the United States Bridge Federation, an NBO? P:robably you are referring to the ACBL, which is a Zonal Authority, not an NBO, and not part of the USBF. That is apparently the basis for the ACBL's claim that it can do anything it wants with regard to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Sep 11 19:31:25 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:31:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 Message-ID: <62A14FCD4292484BAF2F84B980A678E3@MARVLAPTOP> 5. The committee observed that the ACBL publication of the current Laws includes in Law 12C1(e)(ii) the words "had the irregularity not occurred". This is a divergence from the 2007 Laws as promulgated by the World Bridge Federation ('WBF'). Mr. Polisner explained the basis of the ACBL's status vis-?-vis the WBF by which it is empowered to make such changes. Marv: Why are we not given the explanation, is it a secret? Yes it is, because he probably told the LC that the ACBL is not a member of the WBF and therefore is not subject to the WBF By-laws, which give the WBFLC sole authority for writing and interpreting the Laws. The United States Bridge Federation is a member, but the ACBL is not part of the USBF. The LC evidently doesn't want to touch this hot potato. LC: Mr. Wildavsky remarked that the ACBL Laws Commission had not understood what the law meant in the absence of these words and that in the 1997 laws the interpretation was a possible one. Marv: For non-readers. The ACBL LC soundly rejected this possibility many years ago when Adam brought it up with them. It is a dead horse. And why is Adam participating in a WBFLC meeting? He's not a member. LC: The Secretary observed that while the layout of this law has altered, its English meaning is unchanged from that of the 1997 law. 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. Marv: What an unprincipled cop-out*! What about the stupid ACBL-authored law requiring that an avg+/avg- award must total 100%? If the avg+ side gets 65% (their average on other boards), the avg- side gets 35% instead of 40%. That law frequently makes a difference! The issue dodged is whether the WBF will tolerate the ACBL's claim that it has total control over the Laws in Zone 2 (Canada, the USA, and Mexico). Maybe the new WBF president (Gianarrigo Rona) will be more concerned with this issue than Damaini was. * cop-out. n. slang. A failure to fulfill a commitment or responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From blml at arcor.de Fri Sep 11 21:52:31 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:52:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AAA0F0E.8010503@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AAA0F0E.8010503@ulb.ac.be> <4AA8C038.6090206@ulb.ac.be> <14911618.1252578803525.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <18620117.1252698751014.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Thomas : > > > > > >> It was impossible for them to alert, because they didn't know the 1H bid > > >> could be construed as a cue-bid (I, for one, use 1H as take-out here). > >> It would have caused all sorts of problems to enquire about a > >> non-alerted bid. > >> What could I do ? > >> > > > > As a player, I would ask LHO something like > > "what type of hands would overcall 1H here". > > > AG : but we're told we should avoid this when the bid wasn't alerted. Who says that, in the context of a bid with unclear meaning? L20F1 is not limited to alerted calls. Thomas Noch keine Pl?ne f?r das n?chste Wochenende? Klicken Sie rein in den neuen Veranstaltungskalender auf arcor.de: http://events.arcor.de/ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 11 23:29:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:29:40 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 Message-ID: <10531545.1252704580802.JavaMail.root@ps28> >----Original Message---- >From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com >Date: 11/09/2009 18:31 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 > >5. The committee observed that the ACBL publication of the current >Laws includes in Law 12C1(e)(ii) the words "had the irregularity not >occurred". This is a divergence from the 2007 Laws as promulgated by >the World Bridge Federation ('WBF'). Mr. Polisner explained the >basis of the ACBL's status vis-?-vis the WBF by which it is >empowered to make such changes. > >Marv: > >Why are we not given the explanation, is it a secret? Yes it is, >because he probably told the LC that the ACBL is not a member of >the WBF and therefore is not subject to the WBF By-laws, which give >the WBFLC sole authority for writing and interpreting the Laws. The >United States Bridge Federation is a member, but the ACBL is not >part of the USBF. The LC evidently doesn't want to touch this hot >potato. > >LC: > >Mr. Wildavsky remarked that the ACBL Laws Commission had not >understood what the law meant in the absence of these words and that >in the 1997 laws the interpretation was a possible one. > >Marv: > >For non-readers. The ACBL LC soundly rejected this possibility many >years ago when Adam brought it up with them. It is a dead horse. And >why is Adam participating in a WBFLC meeting? He's not a member. > >LC: > >The Secretary observed that while the layout of this law has >altered, its English meaning is unchanged from that of the 1997 law. >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. > >Marv: > >What an unprincipled cop-out*! > >What about the stupid ACBL-authored law requiring that an avg+/avg- >award must total 100%? If the avg+ side gets 65% (their average on >other boards), the avg- side gets 35% instead of 40%. That law >frequently makes a difference! > >The issue dodged is whether the WBF will tolerate the ACBL's claim >that it has total control over the Laws in Zone 2 (Canada, the USA, >and Mexico). Maybe the new WBF president (Gianarrigo Rona) will be >more concerned with this issue than Damaini was. > >* cop-out. n. slang. A failure to fulfill a commitment or >responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely. > +=+ 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 ~ +=+ Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 12 01:56:53 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:56:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? In-Reply-To: <21732C3D9A3243BDA46E4E2DE7BED6D9@MARVLAPTOP> References: <3194882.1252668927585.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> <21732C3D9A3243BDA46E4E2DE7BED6D9@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <75C6C911FF364F99A06D4976EBA205CB@NigelPC> {Marvin French] Probably you are referring to the ACBL, which is a Zonal Authority, not an NBO, and not part of the USBF. That is apparently the basis for the ACBL's claim that it can do anything it wants with regard to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. [Nigel] As the ACBL isn't an NBO, I presume the drafting committee won't solicit its views. Grattan explained that when the WBFLC drafts laws, it doesn't directly poll the views of ordinary players, because its responsibilty is to its NBO members. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Sep 12 03:23:28 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:23:28 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 References: <10531545.1252704580802.JavaMail.root@ps28> Message-ID: <89604365ADEA4F0E9C8618293C3AF8A6@MARVLAPTOP> Grattan: >>Marv: >> >>What an unprincipled cop-out*! >> >>What about the stupid ACBL-authored law requiring that an >>avg+/avg- >>award must total 100%? If the avg+ side gets 65% (their average on >>other boards), the avg- side gets 35% instead of 40%. That law >>frequently makes a difference! >> >>The issue dodged is whether the WBF will tolerate the ACBL's claim >>that it has total control over the Laws in Zone 2 (Canada, the >>USA, >>and Mexico). Maybe the new WBF president (Gianarrigo Rona) will be >>more concerned with this issue than Damaini was. >> >>* cop-out. n. slang. A failure to fulfill a commitment or >>responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely. >> > +=+ 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. It's a matter of principle, Grattan. There were at least two substantive changes to the official 2007 Laws made by the ACBL in its 2008 edition of the Laws. That has never happened before, to my knowledge, and you think that is unimportant? Let's revisit my example auction and Law L12C1(e)(ii) 1S-P-2S*-P P-3H-3S, all pass *long hesitation This sort of auction happens frequently. The 3H bidder knows his bid is illegal, but also knows that he is unlikely to be caught and unlikely to be doubled. In ACBL-land the worst that can happen to him is that the contract is put back to 2S. That's a license to cheat. Elsewhere the worst that can happen is that he gets assigned a score of 3Hx down 200 or more. You haven't seen that? That's because TDs and ACs don't know the Laws. We in ACBL-land elect a Board of Directors, who appoint people to commissions. Those people are supposed to reflect the will of the ACBL membership and not take unwarranted actions based on personal bias or an appetite for power. We want one authority for the Laws, not two. Our representatives have let us down, and the undemocratic nature of BoD elections makes it difficult to vote them out. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 12 04:34:34 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:34:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 In-Reply-To: <89604365ADEA4F0E9C8618293C3AF8A6@MARVLAPTOP> References: <10531545.1252704580802.JavaMail.root@ps28> <89604365ADEA4F0E9C8618293C3AF8A6@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:23:28 -0400, Marvin L French wrote: > Grattan: > >>> Marv: >>> >>> What an unprincipled cop-out*! >>> >>> What about the stupid ACBL-authored law requiring that an >>> avg+/avg- >>> award must total 100%? If the avg+ side gets 65% (their average on >>> other boards), the avg- side gets 35% instead of 40%. That law >>> frequently makes a difference! >>> >>> The issue dodged is whether the WBF will tolerate the ACBL's claim >>> that it has total control over the Laws in Zone 2 (Canada, the >>> USA, >>> and Mexico). Maybe the new WBF president (Gianarrigo Rona) will be >>> more concerned with this issue than Damaini was. >>> >>> * cop-out. n. slang. A failure to fulfill a commitment or >>> responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely. >>> >> +=+ 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. > > It's a matter of principle, Grattan. I am usually a big fan of principle. But I don't see any matter of principle being violated by the WBFLC. It seems they are taking a practical approach to a possibly awkward situation. But I very much appreciate you explaining the relationship between the ACBL and the WBF. It is interesting, and I think useful. > There were at least two > substantive changes to the official 2007 Laws made by the ACBL in > its 2008 edition of the Laws. That has never happened before, to my > knowledge, and you think that is unimportant? > > Let's revisit my example auction and Law L12C1(e)(ii) > > 1S-P-2S*-P > P-3H-3S, all pass > > *long hesitation > > This sort of auction happens frequently. The 3H bidder knows his bid > is illegal, In my experience at the club, not so. And even in higher levels, not necessarily. If 50% of the players would not even consider a pass, pass could still a logical alternative. > but also knows that he is unlikely to be caught and > unlikely to be doubled. Unlikely to be caught? Why not? Most players at the club level are learning to call the director in this situation. > In ACBL-land the worst that can happen to > him is that the contract is put back to 2S. No, the worst that can happen is that he goes down in 3H when 2S isn't making. If the director is called and pass is a logical alternative, going back to 2S is the best that can happen. > That's a license to > cheat. Elsewhere the worst that can happen is that he gets assigned > a score of 3Hx down 200 or more. You haven't seen that? That's > because TDs and ACs don't know the Laws. I think you are confusing your interpretation of the laws with the laws themselves. The laws do not say how to calculate probabilities. You are using Grattan's method, but I think that is inconsistent with how probabilities and expectations are usually calculated. > > We in ACBL-land elect a Board of Directors, who appoint people to > commissions. Those people are supposed to reflect the will of the > ACBL membership and not take unwarranted actions based on personal > bias or an appetite for power. We want one authority for the Laws, > not two. Our representatives have let us down, and the undemocratic > nature of BoD elections makes it difficult to vote them out. Actually, at the club where I work, they care only about the opinion of the ACBL. They have been consistently clear on that. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Sep 12 05:08:22 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:08:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93C09382E6704DEFBF97B127451E16E9@erdos> Richard Hills writes: > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- ---- --- Pass > 1D X 3NT Pass > Pass Pass > > You, South, hold: > > 652 > 96 > 9732 > J976 > > What do you lead at imps? > What do you lead at matchpoints? S6 at either. East's failure to redouble or bid a major suggests that he doesn't have a major, so I want to hit partner's major suit, and the S6 looks better than the H9 since partner isn't likely to have more than four in either major, and since I would like to have one to lead on the third round in case two rounds are played before I get in with the CJ. A club is not an LA because this auction implies clubs in declarer's hand. What is the rest of the story? If partner's final pass was slow, that suggests a heart lead, as partner might have been considering a lead-directing double based on a hand too strong to overcall, and a lead-directing double asks for a lead of the shortest suit that I hold and that partner might hold. Since I do not consider either minor an LA, I still lead a spade. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 14 01:00:24 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:00:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, parallel post: >>...I claim that reducing deterrence encourages infractions... Richard Hills, previous post: >Now Nigel has graduated from Not Even Wrong to merely Wrong. > >Again this apparently common-sense idea has been previously >refuted in The Real World (not merely on blml) and again Nigel >keeps riding his hobby-horse despite The Real World evidence. Richard Hills, current post: Alain Gottcheiner correctly pointed out that "agreeing to disagree" and In My Opinion were appropriate when not discussing matters of fact. Since I did not quote The Real World factual evidence in my previous post, Nigel Guthrie was entitled to misinterpret my post as a mere assertion of opinion and agree to differ. If Nigel Guthrie believes that his assertion "reducing deterrence encourages infractions" is more-or-less logically equivalent to the assertion "increasing deterrence discourages infractions", then -> Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, Freakonomics (2nd ed), pp 15-16: "Imagine for a moment that you are the manager of a day-care center. You have a clearly stated policy that children are supposed to be picked up by 4 p.m. But very often parents are late. The result: at day's end you have some anxious children and at least one teacher who must wait around for the parents to arrive. What to do? A pair of economists who heard of this dilemma - it turned out to be a rather common one - offered a solution: fine the tardy parents. Why, after all, should the day-care center take care of these kids for free? The economists decided to test their solution by conducting a study of ten day-care centers in Haifa, Israel. The study lasted twenty weeks, but the fine was not introduced immediately. For the first four weeks, the economists simply kept track of the number of parents who came late; there were, on average, eight late pickups per week per day-care center. In the fifth week, the fine was enacted. It was announced that any parent arriving more than ten minutes late would pay $3 per child for each incident. The fee would be added to the parents' monthly bill, which was roughly $380. After the fine was enacted, the number of late pickups promptly went...up. Before long there were twenty late pickups per week, more than double the original average. The incentive had plainly backfired." 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 14 01:50:20 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:50:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] If Nigel Guthrie believes that his assertion "reducing deterrence encourages infractions" is more-or-less logically equivalent to the assertion "increasing deterrence discourages infractions", then -> [Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, Freakonomics (2nd ed), pp 15-16] "Imagine for a moment that you are the manager of a day-care center. You have a clearly stated policy that children are supposed to be picked up by 4 p.m. But very often parents are late. The result: at day's end you have some anxious children and at least one teacher who must wait around for the parents to arrive. What to do? A pair of economists who heard of this dilemma - it turned out to be a rather common one - offered a solution: fine the tardy parents. Why, after all, should the day-care center take care of these kids for free? The economists decided to test their solution by conducting a study of ten day-care centers in Haifa, Israel. The study lasted twenty weeks, but the fine was not introduced immediately. For the first four weeks, the economists simply kept track of the number of parents who came late; there were, on average, eight late pickups per week per day-care center. In the fifth week, the fine was enacted. It was announced that any parent arriving more than ten minutes late would pay $3 per child for each incident. The fee would be added to the parents' monthly bill, which was roughly $380. After the fine was enacted, the number of late pickups promptly went...up. Before long there were twenty late pickups per week, more than double the original average. The incentive had plainly backfired." [Nige1] Richards definitive study is a bad news for psychologists who must to trash their previous tomes on avoidance conditioning :( BTW, when it was a contentious topic, I used to argue that capital punishment was barbaric. My father Charles, countered with a democratic compromise: Those who shared my views could wear wear a badge saying "My murderer must not be hanged" or "My murderer must not go to prison" or "Murder my children to get a bowl of hot soup" or whatever :) From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 14 01:51:25 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:51:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:00:24 -0400, wrote: > Nigel Guthrie, parallel post: > >>> ...I claim that reducing deterrence encourages infractions... > > Richard Hills, previous post: > >> Now Nigel has graduated from Not Even Wrong to merely Wrong. >> >> Again this apparently common-sense idea has been previously >> refuted in The Real World (not merely on blml) and again Nigel >> keeps riding his hobby-horse despite The Real World evidence. > > Richard Hills, current post: > > Alain Gottcheiner correctly pointed out that "agreeing to disagree" > and In My Opinion were appropriate when not discussing matters of > fact. Since I did not quote The Real World factual evidence in my > previous post, Nigel Guthrie was entitled to misinterpret my post > as a mere assertion of opinion and agree to differ. > > If Nigel Guthrie believes that his assertion "reducing deterrence > encourages infractions" is more-or-less logically equivalent to the > assertion "increasing deterrence discourages infractions", then -> > > Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, Freakonomics (2nd ed), pp 15-16: > > "Imagine for a moment that you are the manager of a day-care > center. You have a clearly stated policy that children are supposed > to be picked up by 4 p.m. But very often parents are late. The > result: at day's end you have some anxious children and at least > one teacher who must wait around for the parents to arrive. What to > do? > A pair of economists who heard of this dilemma - it turned out > to be a rather common one - offered a solution: fine the tardy > parents. Why, after all, should the day-care center take care of > these kids for free? > The economists decided to test their solution by conducting a > study of ten day-care centers in Haifa, Israel. The study lasted > twenty weeks, but the fine was not introduced immediately. For the > first four weeks, the economists simply kept track of the number of > parents who came late; there were, on average, eight late pickups > per week per day-care center. In the fifth week, the fine was > enacted. It was announced that any parent arriving more than ten > minutes late would pay $3 per child for each incident. The fee > would be added to the parents' monthly bill, which was roughly > $380. > After the fine was enacted, the number of late pickups promptly > went...up. Before long there were twenty late pickups per week, > more than double the original average. The incentive had plainly > backfired." Neat study. But, rewards and punishments are going to affect people's conscious choices. Almost all revokes and insufficient bids are unintentional, which is to say, not conscious choices. So punishments are not going to have much effect on them. Yes, people can think twice before they play a card to make sure it is not a revoke. That's a conscious choice. But as a director, for the sake of time I would rather they just play the card they have decided to play. And for the sake of enjoyment, I would rather they spent time doing something more interesting than double-checking to make sure they haven't revoked. In this study, I am guessing there were social pressures to be on time -- to cooperate with the preschool, to avoid keeping the teacher late, etc. Those got taken away when the late fee was assessed, and the late fee was less powerful than the social pressures. That probably says a lot about how to run a bridge game -- everyone should be working together and cooperating to make the bridge as enjoyable as possible. > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 14 03:41:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:41:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, Freakonomics (2nd ed), pp 15-16: "Imagine for a moment that you are the manager of a day-care center. You have a clearly stated policy that children are supposed to be picked up by 4 p.m. But very often parents are late. The result: at day's end you have some anxious children and at least one teacher who must wait around for the parents to arrive. What to do? A pair of economists who heard of this dilemma - it turned out to be a rather common one - offered a solution: fine the tardy parents. Why, after all, should the day-care center take care of these kids for free? The economists decided to test their solution by conducting a study of ten day-care centers in Haifa, Israel. The study lasted twenty weeks, but the fine was not introduced immediately. For the first four weeks, the economists simply kept track of the number of parents who came late; there were, on average, eight late pickups per week per day-care center. In the fifth week, the fine was enacted. It was announced that any parent arriving more than ten minutes late would pay $3 per child for each incident. The fee would be added to the parents' monthly bill, which was roughly $380. After the fine was enacted, the number of late pickups promptly went...up. Before long there were twenty late pickups per week, more than double the original average. The incentive had plainly backfired." Robert Frick: >Neat study. >..... >In this study, I am guessing there were social pressures to be on >time -- to cooperate with the preschool, to avoid keeping the >teacher late, etc. Those got taken away when the late fee was >assessed, and the late fee was less powerful than the social >pressures. That probably says a lot about how to run a bridge game >-- everyone should be working together and cooperating to make the >bridge as enjoyable as possible. 2007 Introduction: There are fewer automatic penalties: they are replaced by the concept of rectification of a situation that unfortunately has arisen. Robert Frick: >But, rewards and punishments are going to affect people's conscious >choices. Almost all revokes and insufficient bids are unintentional, >which is to say, not conscious choices. So punishments are not going >to have much effect on them. Richard Hills: But excessive punishments, such as the automatic two trick penalty (not then rectification) for revokes which existed prior to the 1975 Lawbook, may have much effect -- social pressures or moral suasion -- upon a pre-1975 bridge **opponent**. For example, the late Frank Vine believed that it was unsporting to gain an unearned top via a ridiculous penalty after an opponent's trivial infraction, so Frank would illegally refuse to summon the Director (unless the opponent had previously "done the dirty" on Frank, in which case Frank would now choose to obey Law 9). Similar social pressures / moral suasion occurred in eighteenth century England. The government had the neat idea of discouraging infractions by making most criminal offences punishable by death. But the result was not a decrease in the crime rate, but rather an increase in acquittals, as juries refused to condemn to death a criminal who had merely picked a pocket. Lyndon Baines Johnson, Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate in 1960: "I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best coloured man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him someone to look down on and he'll empty his pockets for you." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 14 04:05:57 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:05:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 18:00 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Nigel Guthrie, parallel post: > >>>...I claim that reducing deterrence encourages infractions... > > Richard Hills, previous post: > >>Now Nigel has graduated from Not Even Wrong to merely Wrong. >> >>Again this apparently common-sense idea has been previously >>refuted in The Real World (not merely on blml) and again Nigel >>keeps riding his hobby-horse despite The Real World evidence. > > Richard Hills, current post: > > Alain Gottcheiner correctly pointed out that "agreeing to disagree" > and In My Opinion were appropriate when not discussing matters of > fact. Since I did not quote The Real World factual evidence in my > previous post, Nigel Guthrie was entitled to misinterpret my post > as a mere assertion of opinion and agree to differ. > > If Nigel Guthrie believes that his assertion "reducing deterrence > encourages infractions" is more-or-less logically equivalent to the > assertion "increasing deterrence discourages infractions", then -> > > Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, Freakonomics (2nd ed), pp 15-16: > > "Imagine for a moment that you are the manager of a day-care > center. You have a clearly stated policy that children are supposed > to be picked up by 4 p.m. But very often parents are late. The > result: at day's end you have some anxious children and at least > one teacher who must wait around for the parents to arrive. What to > do? > A pair of economists who heard of this dilemma - it turned out > to be a rather common one - offered a solution: fine the tardy > parents. Why, after all, should the day-care center take care of > these kids for free? > The economists decided to test their solution by conducting a > study of ten day-care centers in Haifa, Israel. The study lasted > twenty weeks, but the fine was not introduced immediately. For the > first four weeks, the economists simply kept track of the number of > parents who came late; there were, on average, eight late pickups > per week per day-care center. In the fifth week, the fine was > enacted. It was announced that any parent arriving more than ten > minutes late would pay $3 per child for each incident. The fee > would be added to the parents' monthly bill, which was roughly > $380. > After the fine was enacted, the number of late pickups promptly > went...up. Before long there were twenty late pickups per week, > more than double the original average. The incentive had plainly > backfired." > > > Best wishes > > R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Does it really need to be pointed out that for deterrents to satisfy their purpose they need to be germane? An analysis of your Israeli baby sitters misses the mark. It was presented that the problem was parents inconveniencing the baby sitters. Any sane businessman would realize the folly of such a business model since the money to be made is a result of providing the service of convenience to the parents. The outcome of charging late parents but $3 is obvious to the parents. Should they spend $50 a day to pick up their children at the convenience of the baby sitter or $3? Certainly if the requirement is for there to be no pickups after 4pm the answer is to take at 4:10pm the children to a baby sitter that is open and charge for the services rendered, including transportation. It thereafter being likely that the parents neglect to leave their children [thereafter being no late pickups] with the first sitter but go straight to the ultimate one. However, since you are talking about Israelis they would see the alternative as being superior- charge an after hours rate that results in a good profit But, if you are talking about bridge, that is different. If the rules treat players differently [which they do] and/or, make the players all criminals [which they do] then there is little [but not necessarily no] incentive to being deterred. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 14 07:05:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:05:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <93C09382E6704DEFBF97B127451E16E9@erdos> Message-ID: >>Dlr: South >>Vul: North-South >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- ---- --- Pass >>1D X 3NT Pass >>Pass Pass >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>652 >>96 >>9732 >>J976 >> >>What do you lead at imps? >>What do you lead at matchpoints? David Grabiner: >S6 at either. East's failure to redouble or bid a major suggests >that he doesn't have a major, so I want to hit partner's major >suit, and the S6 looks better than the H9 since partner isn't >likely to have more than four in either major, and since I would >like to have one to lead on the third round in case two rounds >are played before I get in with the CJ. A club is not an LA >because this auction implies clubs in declarer's hand. > >What is the rest of the story? If partner's final pass was slow, Richard Hills: Yes, North's final pass was slow. An obtuse Director argued that the break in tempo did not demonstrably suggest anything and hence the table score of 3NT three off for +150 to North-South would necessarily stand. David Grabiner: >that suggests a heart lead, as partner might have been considering >a lead-directing double based on a hand too strong to overcall, and >a lead-directing double asks for a lead of the shortest suit that I >hold and that partner might hold. Richard Hills: This problem, discussed on blml in March 2003, arose at the Tenerife European Championship. The then Appeals Committee (which included Grattan Endicott) over-ruled the Director to agree that a heart lead was demonstrably suggested. The Appeals Committee then had to resolve whether a heart lead was the only logical alternative. David Grabiner: >Since I do not consider either minor an LA, I still lead a spade. Richard Hills: Steve Willner (then) and myself (now) consider any non-diamond suit to be a logical alternative opening lead. But our differing with David Grabiner makes no difference; only a heart lead defeats 3NT. Gordon Rainsford, however, is consistent (both then and now) in believing that a heart lead is the only logical alternative. The complete deal -> Board 5 Dlr: South Vul: North-South A94 AQJ8532 8 K4 K873 QJT 7 KT4 AKT5 QJ64 AT32 Q85 652 96 9732 J976 Perhaps the table Director's obtuseness was subconsciously influenced by seeing all 52 cards at the time of the ruling. If the Director had ruled "blind", seeing only South's cards, then it is possible that an Appeals Committee would have been unnecessary. 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 Mon Sep 14 08:49:09 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:49:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CFEDE6A-5DDB-4B65-AE94-7A6A57AB17B1@btinternet.com> On 14 Sep 2009, at 06:05, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Gordon Rainsford, however, is consistent (both then and now) in > believing that a heart lead is the only logical alternative. I answered the question as to what I would lead in a given situation. It's a bit of a stretch to say that I consider it to be the only logical alternative. Given how rarely I post here, it's quite surprising that answered this question on two occasions six years apart. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090914/4fd97c65/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 14 09:06:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:06:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <434CE78B7FA0424E8683839A019DC6AF@NigelPC> Message-ID: Richard, 2nd March 2003: >>>If "Bridge in a nutshell" defined a 2D response to 1NT was natural, >>>and one member of the partnership believed that a 2D response to >>>1NT was natural *but* the other member of the partnership believed >>>that "Bridge in a nutshell" defined a 2D response to 1NT as a >>>transfer, *then* the partnership does not have an agreement. What >>>Goren actually wrote is irrelevant - the law of contracts maxim is >>>"ignorance is no excuse", but the law of bridge maxim is "ignorance >>>means no agreement". Grattan, 3rd March 2003: >>+=+ And to disclose an agreed meaning that is not agreed is MI. +=+ Nigel, 11th September 2009: >If Richard and Grattan correctly interpret this law, then, it should >be changed, IMO. In normal English, a mutual agreement remains an >agreement, even when you misunderstand it or forget it. Richard, 14th September 2009: If Nigel had correctly interpreted Richard and Grattan, then I would agree that Law 40 should be changed. But in most Law 40 circumstances, a mutual partnership understanding does remain a mutual partnership understanding, even if you later misunderstand it or forget it. (The exception being Law 40C1 frequent deviations, which replace old mutual understandings with new ones.) The key word mutually used by Nigel and myself is "remain(s)". A pre- existing mutual partnership understanding cannot "remain" a pre- existing mutual partnership understanding after a misunderstanding or forgettery unless the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding commenced prior to the misunderstanding or forgettery. A player cannot forget "Bridge in a nutshell" if that player has never read it. :-) Nigel, 11th September 2009: >I feel that your opponents and the director should accept such an >agreement, especially when backed by hard-copy evidence (system-card, >system-notes, or system-book). Pocket Oxford Dictionary: agreement, n., mutual understanding Richard, 14th September 2009: System cards unilaterally written up by one partner, but never seen by the other partner, cannot possibly be pre-existing mutual partnership understandings by any use of logical reasoning. Isaac, I Robot, 1950: "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulates." Nigel, 11th September 2009: >Of course, you may unilaterally depart from such an agreement Richard, 14th September 2009: How can one commit the offence of unilaterally departing from a non- existent agreement? Where is Kafka when we need him? Nigel, 11th September 2009: >but, IMO, the director should treat that as a psych. Richard, 14th September If one uses the Alain Protocol, which is that "IMO" is only used for matters of debatable opinion, not for factual matters about what the Lawbook actually says, then Nigel's "IMO" above is incorrect. When there is a factual dispute about whether or not a pair have an agreement, the Director is prohibited by Law from arbitrarily always ruling "psyche" but never "no agreement". Instead, the Director diligently fills the scales of justice via Law 85A1: "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." 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 Sep 14 09:36:39 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:36:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4CFEDE6A-5DDB-4B65-AE94-7A6A57AB17B1@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Gordon Rainsford, however, is consistent (both then and now) in >>believing that a heart lead is the only logical alternative. Gordon Rainsford: >I answered the question as to what I would lead in a given >situation. It's a bit of a stretch to say that I consider it to >be the only logical alternative. > >Given how rarely I post here, it's quite surprising that I >answered this question on two occasions six years apart. Richard Hills: That's a double-oops. My sincere apologies for unintentionally misquoting Gordon. Also, while Gordon was active in March 2003, he was participating in a claim thread, not in the previous iteration of this logical alternative thread. I became confused because it was the other Gordon, Gordon Bower, who was strenuously arguing in March 2003 that a heart lead was the only logical alternative. Gordon Bower, 9th March 2003: [snip] >>The fact I have one more spade means partner has one less spade, >>and there are more reasons to double with 4-5 majors than with >>5-4 majors (if you play 1D-1H-P-1S as nonforcing, anyway.) >> >>I am sure there are some directors who think other suits are >>LAs, and I am sure for some players there would be. I personally >>would be leading a heart against 1D-X-3NT almost automatically, >>and feel many good players would do the same, [snip] Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 14 13:04:12 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:04:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <18620117.1252698751014.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <4AAA0F0E.8010503@ulb.ac.be> <4AA8C038.6090206@ulb.ac.be> <14911618.1252578803525.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18620117.1252698751014.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4AAE232C.1090109@ulb.ac.be> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Thomas : >> >>> >>> >>>> It was impossible for them to alert, because they didn't know the 1H bid >>>> >>>> could be construed as a cue-bid (I, for one, use 1H as take-out here). >>>> It would have caused all sorts of problems to enquire about a >>>> non-alerted bid. >>>> What could I do ? >>>> >>>> >>> As a player, I would ask LHO something like >>> "what type of hands would overcall 1H here". >>> >>> >> AG : but we're told we should avoid this when the bid wasn't alerted. >> > > Who says that, in the context of a bid with unclear meaning? > L73. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 13:52:31 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:52:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AAE232C.1090109@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AAA0F0E.8010503@ulb.ac.be> <4AA8C038.6090206@ulb.ac.be> <14911618.1252578803525.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18620117.1252698751014.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4AAE232C.1090109@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2009/9/14 Alain Gottcheiner : > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Thomas : >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It was impossible for them to alert, because they didn't know the 1H bid >>>>> >>>>> could be construed as a cue-bid ?(I, for one, use 1H as take-out here). >>>>> It would have caused all sorts of problems to enquire about a >>>>> non-alerted bid. >>>>> What could I do ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> As a player, I would ask LHO something like >>>> "what type of hands would overcall 1H here". >>>> >>>> >>> AG : but we're told we should avoid this when the bid wasn't alerted. >>> >> >> Who says that, in the context of a bid with unclear meaning? >> > L73. What part of L73 are you referring to, 73C? If so, it says nothing about asking or not about bids alterted or not. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 14 15:18:41 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:18:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 In-Reply-To: <89604365ADEA4F0E9C8618293C3AF8A6@MARVLAPTOP> References: <10531545.1252704580802.JavaMail.root@ps28> <89604365ADEA4F0E9C8618293C3AF8A6@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <75EE4A1E-E950-41FD-8315-49D82C1308DE@starpower.net> On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > This sort of auction happens frequently. The 3H bidder knows his bid > is illegal, but also knows that he is unlikely to be caught and > unlikely to be doubled. In ACBL-land the worst that can happen to > him is that the contract is put back to 2S. That's a license to > cheat. Elsewhere the worst that can happen is that he gets assigned > a score of 3Hx down 200 or more. You haven't seen that? That's > because TDs and ACs don't know the Laws. Well, no, in ACBL-land the worst that can happen to him is that 3H gets doubled and goes down 200 or more at the table. Marv's point is still valid, but that 3H bid isn't exactly risk-free. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 14 15:49:59 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:49:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4AAA0F0E.8010503@ulb.ac.be> <4AA8C038.6090206@ulb.ac.be> <14911618.1252578803525.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <18620117.1252698751014.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <4AAE232C.1090109@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AAE4A07.6060104@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2009/9/14 Alain Gottcheiner : > >> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Thomas : >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It was impossible for them to alert, because they didn't know the 1H bid >>>>>> >>>>>> could be construed as a cue-bid (I, for one, use 1H as take-out here). >>>>>> It would have caused all sorts of problems to enquire about a >>>>>> non-alerted bid. >>>>>> What could I do ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> As a player, I would ask LHO something like >>>>> "what type of hands would overcall 1H here". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> AG : but we're told we should avoid this when the bid wasn't alerted. >>>> >>>> >>> Who says that, in the context of a bid with unclear meaning? >>> >>> >> L73. >> > > What part of L73 are you referring to, 73C? > If so, it says nothing about asking or not about bids alterted or not. > OK, I'll cross the T's. There is a consensus that asking about a non-alerted bid could transmit UI, be of the "pro" question type or, worse, serve as illicit communication. Whence the reference to L73. So they say we'd should avoid such questions if atall possible. But of course there are cases where, as you mention, one should rather ask. The problem is : it also transmits the following UI : "I think this is a case where it would be profitable to ask, even creating UI if needed". And all that by a side who has made nothing illegal, against a side who made a slight error. IMNSHO, the solution is to avoid this error by alerting the side to the fact that this alertable bid is very alertable. I'd even say that plain alerts of very special bids could be deceptive, whence the Rules (or rather the Lawmakers) should do somethiing to avoid this deception. (no, pre-alert isn't the solution, if it's a rare case, because many pairs have too much such agreements) The other way out of the problem is to decide that asking never creates UI, in order to induce players to ask, but this feels wrong in other respects. Here is a recent case (unopposed bidding): 1D 1S 2C 2H* 2S pass * if it were 4th suit, an alert would still be needed But it was a kind of puppet bid (signoff in spades or several strong types). Who would have thought about asking ? They "know" it's 4th suit, whence asking could create problems, UI and others. But of course they need to know that responder could be quite weak. Now, we have about 200 such agreements. And a number of other pairs have more. The obvious (?) solution is, of course, to require more than a simple alert, but only at the time when it happens, since in a match perhaps 1 or 2 of those 200 agreements will be used. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 14 15:54:22 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:54:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 In-Reply-To: <75EE4A1E-E950-41FD-8315-49D82C1308DE@starpower.net> References: <10531545.1252704580802.JavaMail.root@ps28> <89604365ADEA4F0E9C8618293C3AF8A6@MARVLAPTOP> <75EE4A1E-E950-41FD-8315-49D82C1308DE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4AAE4B0E.8090403@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > > >> This sort of auction happens frequently. The 3H bidder knows his bid >> is illegal, but also knows that he is unlikely to be caught and >> unlikely to be doubled. In ACBL-land the worst that can happen to >> him is that the contract is put back to 2S. That's a license to >> cheat. Elsewhere the worst that can happen is that he gets assigned >> a score of 3Hx down 200 or more. You haven't seen that? That's >> because TDs and ACs don't know the Laws. >> > > Well, no, in ACBL-land the worst that can happen to him is that 3H > gets doubled and goes down 200 or more at the table. > > Marv's point is still valid, but that 3H bid isn't exactly risk-free. > AG : I don't quite get it. If somebody does something illegal and the contract is pulled back to what it would have been absent the infraction, surely one risks a penalty (and formal hearing in blatant cases). From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Mon Sep 14 16:49:38 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:49:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Curve Ball Message-ID: <8274D21A31F94FD9B3EFAE833C8BD56D@mikePC> There's nothing like running training courses for novice TDs to turn up little problems and cul-de-sacs in the Law book. John Pain, Sarah, my wife and I have just run what the EBU calls its County Course. It is intended for those who have some experience of directing in the Club and want to go on to offiiate at area events and maybe even progress to the National Panel, so we cover slightly more complex Law Book rulings and Judgement issues. One of our "simple" rulings ran into some long grass. The scenario involved Law 24, a defender acidentalyy dropped a couple of cards on the table during the auction. They were both honours from different suits (D Ace and C Queen). The first trap the Law Makers provided in Law 24 was that they directed the unwary director to Law 50. A bit unkind that because when there are two penalty cards the relevant Law is not just 50 but 51. As the offender's partner was on lead at Trick One this certainly made the problem harder than I intended. However there's more confusion or perhaps it's just me in Law 51 Law 50 offers declarer three options where there is a single penalty card In simple terms (a) require or forbid (b) not to require nor forbid so cards remain as penalty cards Law 51 B 2 confusingly offers two options (a) require and (b) forbid Since these two options use "may" I presume that I can do neither and the cards remain as penalty cards but if so why say this in 50 and not 51. Or perhaps I'm completely wrong and the Law doean't mean this Mr Grumpy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090914/4b154060/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 14 17:14:09 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:14:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Curve Ball In-Reply-To: <8274D21A31F94FD9B3EFAE833C8BD56D@mikePC> References: <8274D21A31F94FD9B3EFAE833C8BD56D@mikePC> Message-ID: <001101ca354e$026efdb0$074cf910$@no> On Behalf Of Mike Amos There's nothing like running training courses for novice TDs to turn up little problems and?cul-de-sacs in the Law book. ? John Pain, Sarah, my wife and I have just run what the EBU calls its County Course.? It is intended for those who have some experience of directing in the Club and want to go on to offiiate at area events and maybe even progress to the National Panel, so we cover slightly more complex Law Book rulings and Judgement issues. ? One of our "simple" rulings ran into some long grass. ? The scenario involved Law 24, a defender acidentalyy dropped a couple of cards on the table during the auction.? They were both honours from different suits (D Ace and C Queen). ? The first trap the Law Makers provided in Law 24 was that they directed the unwary director to Law 50.?? A bit unkind that because when there are two penalty cards the relevant Law is not just 50 but 51.?? As the offender's partner was on lead at Trick One this certainly made the problem harder than I intended. ? However there's more confusion or perhaps it's just me in Law 51 Law 50 offers declarer three options where there is a single penalty card In simple terms (a) require or forbid ???????????????????????(b) not to require nor forbid so cards remain as penalty cards ? Law 51 B 2 confusingly offers two options (a) require and??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (b) forbid ? Since these two options use "may" I presume that I can do neither and the cards remain as penalty cards but if so why say this in 50 and not 51.? Or perhaps I'm completely wrong and the Law doean't mean this ? Mr Grumpy My comment is simply that Law 51 principally tells the Director how to apply the general rules in Law 50 when a player has more than one penalty card. The alternatives offered to declarer are the same, but some of them need adaption to the "new" situation. Law 51B2 doesn't offer two options; it tells how to handle the situations when declarer selects one of the two options among the three options that is available to him. Regards Sven ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 14 17:21:02 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:21:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Curve Ball In-Reply-To: <8274D21A31F94FD9B3EFAE833C8BD56D@mikePC> References: <8274D21A31F94FD9B3EFAE833C8BD56D@mikePC> Message-ID: <4AAE5F5E.8050206@ulb.ac.be> Mike Amos a ?crit : > There's nothing like running training courses for novice TDs to turn > up little problems and cul-de-sacs in the Law book. > > John Pain, Sarah, my wife and I have just run what the EBU calls its > County Course. It is intended for those who have some experience of > directing in the Club and want to go on to offiiate at area events and > maybe even progress to the National Panel, so we cover slightly more > complex Law Book rulings and Judgement issues. > > One of our "simple" rulings ran into some long grass. > > The scenario involved Law 24, a defender acidentalyy dropped a couple > of cards on the table during the auction. They were both honours from > different suits (D Ace and C Queen). > > The first trap the Law Makers provided in Law 24 was that they > directed the unwary director to Law 50. A bit unkind that because > when there are two penalty cards the relevant Law is not just 50 but > 51. As the offender's partner was on lead at Trick One this > certainly made the problem harder than I intended. > > However there's more confusion or perhaps it's just me in Law 51 > Law 50 offers declarer three options where there is a single penalty card > In simple terms (a) require or forbid > (b) not to require nor forbid so cards remain > as penalty cards > > Law 51 B 2 confusingly offers two options (a) require > and (b) forbid > > Since these two options use "may" I presume that I can do neither and > the cards remain as penalty cards but if so why say this in 50 and not > 51. Or perhaps I'm completely wrong and the Law doean't mean this AG : this seems right, including the reference. L50 is concerned with 'a penalty card', not 'one panalty card', which means it also applies to more than one, and make the reference valid. Apply L50D twice. Declarer will exercise his options about DA (Require-Forbid-None), then, if F or N, his options about CQ (R-F-N) ; if his decisions is N+N, there still are two penalty cards, which will have to be played as soon as possible, including on the lead. L51 now tells us about the non-obvious subcases. Don't forget that if the unhappy possessor of two penalty cards happens to be out of some other suit, declarer may call the card to be discarded. Presumably, the other one remains a penalty card, although this isn't explicitly stated. Best regards Alain From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Sep 14 17:30:12 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Curve Ball References: <8274D21A31F94FD9B3EFAE833C8BD56D@mikePC> Message-ID: <002801ca3550$47c2e050$2401a8c0@p41600> Quit using my other pseud Mike, it's copyright. Vlad ********************** Too much C19H28O2 ********************** Mr Grumpy -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 3290 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090914/7d1a0fd0/attachment.html From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Mon Sep 14 18:06:10 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:06:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Curve Ball In-Reply-To: <001101ca354e$026efdb0$074cf910$@no> References: <8274D21A31F94FD9B3EFAE833C8BD56D@mikePC> <001101ca354e$026efdb0$074cf910$@no> Message-ID: <3CAB50FD6BB4424D90F14C1082339A2D@mikePC> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Curve Ball On Behalf Of Mike Amos There's nothing like running training courses for novice TDs to turn up little problems and cul-de-sacs in the Law book. John Pain, Sarah, my wife and I have just run what the EBU calls its County Course. It is intended for those who have some experience of directing in the Club and want to go on to offiiate at area events and maybe even progress to the National Panel, so we cover slightly more complex Law Book rulings and Judgement issues. One of our "simple" rulings ran into some long grass. The scenario involved Law 24, a defender acidentalyy dropped a couple of cards on the table during the auction. They were both honours from different suits (D Ace and C Queen). The first trap the Law Makers provided in Law 24 was that they directed the unwary director to Law 50. A bit unkind that because when there are two penalty cards the relevant Law is not just 50 but 51. As the offender's partner was on lead at Trick One this certainly made the problem harder than I intended. However there's more confusion or perhaps it's just me in Law 51 Law 50 offers declarer three options where there is a single penalty card In simple terms (a) require or forbid (b) not to require nor forbid so cards remain as penalty cards Law 51 B 2 confusingly offers two options (a) require and (b) forbid Since these two options use "may" I presume that I can do neither and the cards remain as penalty cards but if so why say this in 50 and not 51. Or perhaps I'm completely wrong and the Law doean't mean this Mr Grumpy My comment is simply that Law 51 principally tells the Director how to apply the general rules in Law 50 when a player has more than one penalty card. The alternatives offered to declarer are the same, but some of them need adaption to the "new" situation. Surely the point is Sven that you know these things - eg you know that when you are applying Law 50 you need to lookat Law 51 - you know that if you are applying Law 51 that there are more than two options in Law 50 - I'm not sure you'd find these things if it were not for experience - there are very few signposts for the inexperienced TD hacking through the jungle - most clearly for example if I'm applying Law 51 what tells me to look at Law 50? Law 51B2 doesn't offer two options; it tells how to handle the situations when declarer selects one of the two options among the three options that is available to him. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Frances.Hinden at Shell.com Mon Sep 14 18:30:42 2009 From: Frances.Hinden at Shell.com (Frances.Hinden at Shell.com) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:30:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Abomination Message-ID: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com> >Dlr: South >Vul: North-South >The bidding has gone: >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >--- ---- --- Pass >1D X 3NT Pass >Pass Pass >You, South, hold: >652 >96 >9732 >J976 >What do you lead at imps? I consider any non-diamond to be a logical alternative, but would probably lead a club as it's our most likely 9-card fit. We later discover that partner's hand is: >A94 >AQJ8532 >8 >K4 This just goes to show how pointless these polls can be, as I doubt I ever play with a partner who would first double 1D then pass 3NT on that hand. As the actual layout isn't possible for me, there's no useful point asking what I might lead from the hand opposite. So a real poll on this lead problem has first to find people who would double 1D and pass 3NT, and then ask their partners what they would lead (without their partners having heard the first question). Anything else is so much noise. Frances Hinden Surbiton Surrey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090914/d1fda027/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 14 20:27:54 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:27:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Curve Ball In-Reply-To: <3CAB50FD6BB4424D90F14C1082339A2D@mikePC> References: <8274D21A31F94FD9B3EFAE833C8BD56D@mikePC> <001101ca354e$026efdb0$074cf910$@no> <3CAB50FD6BB4424D90F14C1082339A2D@mikePC> Message-ID: <001e01ca3569$13636640$3a2a32c0$@no> On Behalf Of Mike ............. > Surely the point is Sven that you know these things - eg you know that when > you are applying Law 50 you need to lookat Law 51 - you know that if you are > applying Law 51 that there are more than two options in Law 50 - I'm not > sure you'd find these things if it were not for experience - there are very > few signposts for the inexperienced TD hacking through the jungle - most > clearly for example if I'm applying Law 51 what tells me to look at Law 50? > Quite true. And when you shall apply the laws you must be aware of all relevant laws on a particular irregularity. When dealing with penalty cards you not only must be aware of Laws 50 and 51 but also of Laws 49 and 52. What could be argued is that there ought to be a reference from Law 50 to 51 and further on to Law 52, but on the other hand a very strong argument is that the existing reference to Law 50 should be sufficient for anybody with the most basic knowledge of the bridge laws. There are very few laws in the world that a judge can apply correct without first having learned and understand what they express. And when teaching pupils the law on penalty cards in Bridge it is important to "know" the laws from 49 through 52, and not just focus upon one of them. Good luck on your work! Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 14 23:44:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:44:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bizarre Books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >When there is a factual dispute about whether or not a pair have an >agreement, the Director is prohibited by Law from arbitrarily always >ruling "psyche" but never "no agreement". Instead, the Director >diligently fills the scales of justice via Law 85A1: > >"In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the >balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the >weight of the evidence he is able to collect." Verbal evidence has varying weight. For example, a Director perhaps should probe further when this dialogue occurs: Player A (angrily): "She hesitated a lot!" Player B (angrily): "I didn't hesitate at all!" by then Director (soothingly): "Maybe you hesitated just a little bit?" Player B (grudgingly): "Well maybe a little bit - but NOT a lot!" since a little bit of a hesitation is like being a little bit pregnant. On the other hand, in the stem case on this thread, where Partner A has completed the partnership's system cards in accordance with the bizarre book "Bridge in a Nutshell", but Partner B has never read the system cards nor read "Bridge in a Nutshell", Partner B's verbal evidence of "no agreement" carries Neutron Star weight. This is because Partner B is testifying against her own interest. It is completely legal under Law 40A3 to perpetrate a true psyche (but Law 40B2(d) may apply), and as such the opponents are not entitled to any redress. However, it is completely illegal under Law 40B2(a) to have system cards which assert non-existent mutual partnership understandings, so the opponents could now get an adjusted score. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Sep 15 00:43:48 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:43:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Abomination References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <004901ca358c$dc29c920$2401a8c0@p41600> Just given the diagram, with an unknown but sensible pard, my grannie's dog leads the h9. ps I ruled in your favour a few weeks ago in Bristol so have pity... lnb ********************** Too much C19H28O2 ********************** ----- Original Message ----- From: Frances.Hinden at Shell.com To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 5:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Abomination >Dlr: South >Vul: North-South >The bidding has gone: >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >--- ---- --- Pass >1D X 3NT Pass >Pass Pass >You, South, hold: >652 >96 >9732 >J976 >What do you lead at imps? I consider any non-diamond to be a logical alternative, but would probably lead a club as it's our most likely 9-card fit. We later discover that partner's hand is: >A94 >AQJ8532 >8 >K4 This just goes to show how pointless these polls can be, as I doubt I ever play with a partner who would first double 1D then pass 3NT on that hand. As the actual layout isn't possible for me, there's no useful point asking what I might lead from the hand opposite. So a real poll on this lead problem has first to find people who would double 1D and pass 3NT, and then ask their partners what they would lead (without their partners having heard the first question). Anything else is so much noise. Frances Hinden Surbiton Surrey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.95/2368 - Release Date: 09/13/09 17:50:00 -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 3294 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090914/edb61fb7/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 15 00:46:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:46:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Propiniquity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 40B2(a), conclusion: ".....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)." Imps Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 4NT(1) Pass 5C (2) Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass (1) Acol Blackwood, asking for specific aces (2) Specifically zero aces You, South, hold: J6 832 Q952 9754 What is your opening lead? Does your lead change depending on the style of your iniquitous RHO? Yes, my opening lead does vary depending upon my RHO pappenheimer. (a) If RHO rarely opens 4NT, due to waiting until everything is nailed down, then my hope is for RHO to hold a heart-club two- suiter and pard to hold a club void plus pard's marked ace (with pard not Lightner doubling 6H due to having no defence to 6NT). (b) If RHO frequently opens 4NT, hoping to get a few lucky values in dummy or a lucky opening lead, then I lead a diamond to partner's ace and king, cashing the first two tricks. No surprises that East-West were the Ali-Hills partnership, nor that Hashmat Ali has a type (a) style while I have a type (b) style (so as East I made 6H when South led a club rather than the killing diamond). Despite "style" being by Law 40B2(a) definition neither "meaning" nor "method", is it still disclosable as an "inference"??? Law 20F1: "...relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of 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 nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 15 02:40:11 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:40:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Abomination In-Reply-To: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com> References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: [Frances Hinden] A94 AQJ8532 8 K4 This just goes to show how pointless these polls can be, as I doubt I ever play with a partner who would first double 1D then pass 3NT on that hand. As the actual layout isn't possible for me, there's no useful point asking what I might lead from the hand opposite. So a real poll on this lead problem has first to find people who would double 1D and pass 3NT, and then ask their partners what they would lead (without their partners having heard the first question). Anything else is so much noise. [Nigel] I hesitate to disagree with Frances, but I think the actual hand held by the hesitator is almost irrelevant. What matters is what lead the hesitation suggests. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090915/25ec46bf/attachment.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 15 03:07:51 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:07:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <703B1F6A8FD44950AD28D5D5D20FF276@NigelPC> [Robert Frick] But, rewards and punishments are going to affect people's conscious choices. Almost all revokes and insufficient bids are unintentional, which is to say, not conscious choices. So punishments are not going to have much effect on them. [Nigel] I am happy to concede that deliberate cheating is rare at Bridge. But I feel that Victor Mollo is right - Brige players are just a sample of the general populace and exhibit roughtly the same foibles in roughly the same proportions. None regard themselves as criminals yet many are guilty of breaking marriages vows, violating traffic regulations, falsifying tax returns, and so on. Similarly, many bridge players break the rules through ignorance or carelessness or rationalistation. I believe that deterrent laws would concentrate players' minds. 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 less violent. This would be the expected result, whether the relevant assaults were accidental or deliberate. Such a rule might destroy Football as a spectator sport but that is another matter. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 15 03:45:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:45:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <703B1F6A8FD44950AD28D5D5D20FF276@NigelPC> Message-ID: >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 less violent. 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). 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 Sep 15 04:30:09 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:30:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Abomination [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Frances Hinden: [snip] >>We later discover that partner's hand is: >> >>A94 AQJ8532 8 K4 >> >>This just goes to show how pointless these polls can be, as I doubt >>I ever play with a partner who would first double 1D then pass 3NT >>on that hand. As the actual layout isn't possible for me, there's >>no useful point asking what I might lead from the hand opposite. >> >>So a real poll on this lead problem has first to find people who >>would double 1D and pass 3NT, and then ask their partners what they >>would lead (without their partners having heard the first question). >> >>Anything else is so much noise. Nigel Guthrie: >I hesitate to disagree with Frances, but Richard Hills: I have no hesitation in disagreeing with Frances, but on the topic of insufficient bids, not on this topic of logical alternatives. Nigel Guthrie: >I think the actual hand held by the hesitator is almost irrelevant. Richard Hills: The key word is "almost". North's hand and bidding suggests her class of player, in turn suggesting the class of player of her pard South. Frances is suggesting that she would never partner a North who would consider a Lightner Double of 3NT, but then cowardly decide to avoid a score of -650 the unusual way with a wimpy, wimpy, wimpy Pass. Hence South is too timid to be in the same class of player as Frances. Nigel Guthrie: >What matters is what lead the hesitation suggests. Richard Hills: I have no hesitation in agreeing with Nigel. If the person polled is in the same class of player as South, and is using the North-South methods (which includes wimpiness when Lightner Doubling), then the actual North hand does not matter; what matters is what lead the hesitation demonstrably suggests. 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 Sep 15 06:20:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:20:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Village of the Damned (1960): Professor Gordon Zellaby (voiceover): "A brick wall... a brick wall... I must think of a brick wall... a brick wall... I must think of a brick wall... a brick wall... brick wall... I must think of a brick wall... It's almost half past eight... brick wall... only a few seconds more... brick wall... brick wall... brick wall... nearly over... a brick wall..." WBF LC 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." Law 16B3 footnote (and context): ...he should summon the Director when play ends*. *it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. Richard Hills 16th November 2008: >>It seems to me that the Law 16B3 footnote permits a Law 16B3 >>summoning of the Director up to 30 minutes after the posting >>of the official score. Of course, a delay may not be in the >>interests of the summoning side (it may be more difficult >>for the Director to determine the facts), but they do have >>the legal right to such a delay. Grattan Endicott, 17th November 2008 >+=+ I agree. We do not want a request for a ruling to be ruled >out of time because it is not made at the time the law >indicates to be appropriate. However, the use of 'should' in >this law does establish that the desirable time for the >protest to be entered is when play ends. The Director will seek >to know why he was not summoned at that time; it may indicate >that the player did not feel the tray was so long delayed or >perhaps that he did not think his screenmate's action was >influenced. Prompting by his partner, who observed the pause on >his side of the screen, may perhaps have persuaded him that >perhaps the tray did come back more slowly than he had >realized. The Director has questions to explore and his >involvement is called for. > ~ 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 15 09:37:14 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:37:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Abomination In-Reply-To: <004901ca358c$dc29c920$2401a8c0@p41600> References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com> <004901ca358c$dc29c920$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <4AAF442A.8000609@ulb.ac.be> Larry BENNETT a ?crit : > Just given the diagram, with an unknown but sensible pard, my > grannie's dog leads the h9. AG : perhaps your grannie's cat uses to double with hands worth an intermediate overcall in hearts (a genuine one ;-) My partners more often hold KQ10x - KQ10x - Kx - xxx than Ax - KQJxxx - Kx - xxx . Of course it could be 4513, and perhaps I'm biased by my own system (2D with this pattern), but it's a long shot, and above all the presence of a strong 5-card suit is suggested by the tempo. Since that suit will never be spades (always 1S with such hands), but could be hearts as well as clubs (hearts suggested over clubs by my holdings but not by the tempo), leading a spade is "bending backwards", ergo I lead a spade. And I do agree with Frances that it'll be difficult to find "pairs" of that patner, i.e. players who never mention their semi-solid suit. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 15 10:12:17 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:12:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Abomination In-Reply-To: References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <4AAF4C61.2050209@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > /[Frances Hinden]/ > /A94 //AQJ8532 //8 //K4/ > This just goes to show how pointless these polls can be, as I doubt I > ever play with a partner who would first double 1D then pass 3NT on > that hand. As the actual layout isn't possible for me, there's no > useful point asking what I might lead from the hand opposite. So a > real poll on this lead problem has first to find people who would > double 1D and pass 3NT, and then ask their partners what they would > lead (without their partners having heard the first question). > Anything else is so much noise. > > [Nigel] > I hesitate to disagree with Frances, but I think the actual hand held > by the hesitator is almost irrelevant. What matters is what lead the > hesitation suggests. AG : I disagree with Nigel. What the hesitation suggests depends on their style, and this pair's style is uncommon. So, although the actual hand isn' relevant, the fact that it is a possible holding is. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 15 10:18:44 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:18:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <703B1F6A8FD44950AD28D5D5D20FF276@NigelPC> References: <703B1F6A8FD44950AD28D5D5D20FF276@NigelPC> Message-ID: <4AAF4DE4.4000505@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Nigel] > I am happy to concede that deliberate cheating is rare at Bridge. But I feel > that Victor Mollo is right - Brige players are just a sample of the general > populace and exhibit roughtly the same foibles in roughly the same > proportions. None regard themselves as criminals yet many are guilty of > breaking marriages vows, violating traffic regulations, falsifying tax > returns, and so on. Similarly, many bridge players break the rules through > ignorance or carelessness or rationalistation. I believe that deterrent laws > would concentrate players' minds. > > 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 > less violent. This would be the expected result, whether the relevant > assaults were accidental or deliberate. Such a rule might destroy Football > as a spectator sport but that is another matter. > AG : this is a current debate in Belgium, after a rough but otherwise common intervention resulted in a very serious injury (probably 8-10 months out). There is no consensus yet, but it has been said that, since those who injured another player claim they didn't imagine they could have done, the impact would be limited. Of course, there shoud be severe penalties when the intent was to be rough (not necessarily to injure), but, contrary to bridge TDs, football umpires don't pretend they can read minds. Also, notice that rugby, an inherently rough sport, produces less aggressive actions and fewer injuries. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 15 11:47:09 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:47:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <703B1F6A8FD44950AD28D5D5D20FF276@NigelPC> <4AAF4DE4.4000505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007701ca35ee$09f7e510$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Nigel] > I am happy to concede that deliberate cheating is rare at Bridge. But I > feel > that Victor Mollo is right - Brige players are just a sample of the > general > populace and exhibit roughtly the same foibles in roughly the same > proportions. None regard themselves as criminals yet many are guilty of > breaking marriages vows, violating traffic regulations, falsifying tax > returns, and so on. Similarly, many bridge players break the rules through > ignorance or carelessness or rationalistation. I believe that deterrent > laws > would concentrate players' minds. > > 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 > less violent. This would be the expected result, whether the relevant > assaults were accidental or deliberate. Such a rule might destroy Football > as a spectator sport but that is another matter. > AG : this is a current debate in Belgium, after a rough but otherwise common intervention resulted in a very serious injury (probably 8-10 months out). There is no consensus yet, but it has been said that, since those who injured another player claim they didn't imagine they could have done, the impact would be limited. Of course, there shoud be severe penalties when the intent was to be rough (not necessarily to injure), but, contrary to bridge TDs, football umpires don't pretend they can read minds. Also, notice that rugby, an inherently rough sport, produces less aggressive actions and fewer injuries. +=+ In football the joints and bones of the legs and feet are more critically exposed than in rugby. The latter is primarily a game of the upper torso. It seems to me that with the suggested six months ban the weight would fall more heavily on the appeals process with sharp conflicts as to which of the players should be held responsible for the injury - or whether blame should be allocated proportionately. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 15 11:50:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:50:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007801ca35ee$0a2536a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:20 AM Subject: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Village of the Damned (1960): > > Professor Gordon Zellaby (voiceover): "A brick wall... a brick > wall... I must think of a brick wall... a brick wall... I must > think of a brick wall... a brick wall... brick wall... I must > think of a brick wall... It's almost half past eight... brick > wall... only a few seconds more... brick wall... brick wall... > brick wall... nearly over... a brick wall..." > > WBF LC 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." > > Law 16B3 footnote (and context): > > ...he should summon the Director when play ends*. > *it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. > > Richard Hills 16th November 2008: > >>>It seems to me that the Law 16B3 footnote permits a Law 16B3 >>>summoning of the Director up to 30 minutes after the posting >>>of the official score. Of course, a delay may not be in the >>>interests of the summoning side (it may be more difficult >>>for the Director to determine the facts), but they do have >>>the legal right to such a delay. > > Grattan Endicott, 17th November 2008 > >>+=+ I agree. We do not want a request for a ruling to be ruled >>out of time because it is not made at the time the law >>indicates to be appropriate. However, the use of 'should' in >>this law does establish that the desirable time for the >>protest to be entered is when play ends. The Director will seek >>to know why he was not summoned at that time; it may indicate >>that the player did not feel the tray was so long delayed or >>perhaps that he did not think his screenmate's action was >>influenced. Prompting by his partner, who observed the pause on >>his side of the screen, may perhaps have persuaded him that >>perhaps the tray did come back more slowly than he had >>realized. The Director has questions to explore and his >>involvement is called for. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ Perhaps Richard should publish his collection of the Aphorisms of Grattan. +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 15 11:58:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:58:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Abomination References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com><004901ca358c$dc29c920$2401a8c0@p41600> <4AAF442A.8000609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007901ca35ee$0a54f930$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Abomination And I do agree with Frances that it'll be difficult to find "pairs" of that patner, i.e. players who never mention their semi-solid suit. +=+ This may be a one-off manoeuvre of the player rather than a habitual practice. However, on lead I would diagnose a heart suit as the likely basis of the hand. To lead anything else strikes me as insensitive. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 15 13:12:51 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:12:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <703B1F6A8FD44950AD28D5D5D20FF276@NigelPC> References: <703B1F6A8FD44950AD28D5D5D20FF276@NigelPC> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:07:51 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Frick] > But, rewards and punishments are going to affect people's conscious > choices. > Almost all revokes and insufficient bids are unintentional, which is to > say, > not conscious choices. So punishments are not going to have much effect > on > them. > > [Nigel] > I am happy to concede that deliberate cheating is rare at Bridge. But I > feel > that Victor Mollo is right - Brige players are just a sample of the > general > populace and exhibit roughtly the same foibles in roughly the same > proportions. None regard themselves as criminals yet many are guilty of > breaking marriages vows, violating traffic regulations, falsifying tax > returns, and so on. Similarly, many bridge players break the rules > through > ignorance or carelessness or rationalistation. I believe that deterrent > laws > would concentrate players' minds. > > 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 > less violent. This would be the expected result, whether the relevant > assaults were accidental or deliberate. Such a rule might destroy > Football > as a spectator sport but that is another matter. I think a better analogy would be severe penalties against any player who gets hurt. Surely there is some careless error or mistake in judgment underlying many injuries. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 15 13:33:17 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:33:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Abomination In-Reply-To: <4AAF4C61.2050209@ulb.ac.be> References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com> <4AAF4C61.2050209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [Frances Hinden] A94 AQJ8532 8 K4 This just goes to show how pointless these polls can be, as I doubt I ever play with a partner who would first double 1D then pass 3NT on that hand. As the actual layout isn't possible for me, there's no useful point asking what I might lead from the hand opposite. So a real poll on this lead problem has first to find people who would double 1D and pass 3NT, and then ask their partners what they would lead (without their partners having heard the first question). Anything else is so much noise. [Nigel] I hesitate to disagree with Frances, but I think the actual hand held by the hesitator is almost irrelevant. What matters is what lead the hesitation suggests. [Alan Gottcheiner] I disagree with Nigel. [Nige2] Join the club :) [Alan Gottcheiner] What the hesitation suggests depends on their style, and this pair's style is uncommon. So, although the actual hand isn't relevant, the fact that it is a possible holding is. [Nige2] The original poster made no mention of partnership history. If such information is unavailable, I don't think one hand is enough to establish partnership "style". In any case, IMO, with A94 AQJ8532 8 K4 in a bidding competition, there would be several votes for an initial double (intending to follow with a highly invitational heart bid). When the auction comes back to you at 3N, you face a more difficult problem. Now, double and 4H would be popular choices, but, provided that you can rely on a friendly Director/Committee, a thoughtful pass has a reasonable chance of communicating this hand-type to partner :) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 15 19:25:52 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:25:52 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 References: <10531545.1252704580802.JavaMail.root@ps28><89604365ADEA4F0E9C8618293C3AF8A6@MARVLAPTOP> <75EE4A1E-E950-41FD-8315-49D82C1308DE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <3D9F262A31D440D4B5E6642E5FF323FD@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > Marvin L French wrote: > >> This sort of auction happens frequently. The 3H bidder knows his >> bid >> is illegal, but also knows that he is unlikely to be caught and >> unlikely to be doubled. In ACBL-land the worst that can happen to >> him is that the contract is put back to 2S. That's a license to >> cheat. Elsewhere the worst that can happen is that he gets >> assigned >> a score of 3Hx down 200 or more. You haven't seen that? That's >> because TDs and ACs don't know the Laws. > > Well, no, in ACBL-land the worst that can happen to him is that 3H > gets doubled and goes down 200 or more at the table. > > Marv's point is still valid, but that 3H bid isn't exactly > risk-free. Implied is "in his judgment," and of course the 3H bidder is an expert playing against tyros. Did I have to say that? The tyros know enough to call the TD after play, so he gets caught after all, but pays no price for the illegal bid. Not in ACBL-land, thanks to Adam's "emendation" of adding "had the irregularity not occurred" to an offending side's score adjustment. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From blml at arcor.de Tue Sep 15 19:35:37 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:35:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Abomination In-Reply-To: References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com> <4AAF4C61.2050209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4709097.1253036137343.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Frances Hinden] > A94 AQJ8532 8 K4 > This just goes to show how pointless these polls can be, as I doubt I ever > play with a partner who would first double 1D then pass 3NT on that hand. As > > the actual layout isn't possible for me, there's no useful point asking what > > I might lead from the hand opposite. So a real poll on this lead problem > has first to find people who would double 1D and pass 3NT, and then ask > their partners what they would lead (without their partners having heard the > > first question). Anything else is so much noise. > > [Nigel] > I hesitate to disagree with Frances, but I think the actual hand held by the > > hesitator is almost irrelevant. What matters is what lead the hesitation > suggests. > > [Alan Gottcheiner] > I disagree with Nigel. > > [Nige2] > Join the club :) > > [Alan Gottcheiner] > What the hesitation suggests depends on their style, and this pair's style > is uncommon. So, although the actual hand isn't relevant, the fact that it > is a possible holding is. > > [Nige2] > The original poster made no mention of partnership history. If such > information is unavailable, I don't think one hand is enough to establish > partnership "style". In any case, IMO, with A94 AQJ8532 8 K4 in a bidding > competition, there would be several votes for an initial double (intending > to follow with a highly invitational heart bid). When the auction comes back > to you at 3N, you face a more difficult problem. Now, double and 4H would be > popular choices, but, provided that you can rely on a friendly > Director/Committee, a thoughtful pass has a reasonable chance of > communicating this hand-type to partner :) I join the club, too. I think that once you double first with that strong two, passing 3NT is absurd. I'd simply double, and it won't have to think to figure that out. Anybody who deliberately hesitates to communicate the hand to partner should be hit with L73. 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 15 19:42:31 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:42:31 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 References: <10531545.1252704580802.JavaMail.root@ps28> <89604365ADEA4F0E9C8618293C3AF8A6@MARVLAPTOP><75EE4A1E-E950-41FD-8315-49D82C1308DE@starpower.net> <4AAE4B0E.8090403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3004CC443CA04EC48026BDB345D55F83@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" Eric Landau a ?crit : > Marvin L French wrote: > > >> This sort of auction happens frequently. The 3H bidder knows his >> bid >> is illegal, but also knows that he is unlikely to be caught and >> unlikely to be doubled. In ACBL-land the worst that can happen to >> him is that the contract is put back to 2S. That's a license to >> cheat. Elsewhere the worst that can happen is that he gets >> assigned >> a score of 3Hx down 200 or more. You haven't seen that? That's >> because TDs and ACs don't know the Laws. >> > > Well, no, in ACBL-land the worst that can happen to him is that 3H > gets doubled and goes down 200 or more at the table. > > Marv's point is still valid, but that 3H bid isn't exactly > risk-free. > AG : I don't quite get it. If somebody does something illegal and the contract is pulled back to what it would have been absent the infraction, surely one risks a penalty (and formal hearing in blatant cases). Marv: The ACBL's version of the law says nothing to this effect. It aims at rectification without penalizing. An expert cheater would not do anything "blatant," of course. The 3H bid might be quite reasonable even though illegal (with passing an LA). UI is not an irregularity in itself, remember. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com Hooray for Kim Clijsters! What a class act! From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 15 20:16:26 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:16:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [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. [Nige2] Did I really use those quoted words in that context? Please can you find the post, Richard. I do remember reporting that, in my experience, an expert after hesitating over a close decision, will lean over backwards to bid or double. Because, in practice (if not in theory) a slow pass is more likely to inhibit his partner. Others have confirmed my observations, so this is hardly a "thought experiment". But I concede that, without more evidence, it remains a plausible conjecture. [Richard Hills] 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). [Nige2] Excellent point, Richard. And, of course, as we have pointed out in the past, the WBFLC are in an ideal position to conduct practical tests on "improvements" to the laws: WBFLC policy is to delegate responsibility for regulation of many aspects of Bridge to local legislatures. As a player, I don't like this because it prevents a level global playing-field. But the policy could have a redeeming feature, at least in the short term. The WBFLC could monitor and record results of different rule-sets, and poll players and directors, in as methodical way as possible, with a view to collating data and comparing alternative rule-sets. They could even try asking a local legislature to adopt a suggested rule change, just to test it out. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 15 20:40:47 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:40:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Abomination In-Reply-To: <4709097.1253036137343.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com><4AAF4C61.2050209@ulb.ac.be> <4709097.1253036137343.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <366ED692155B4EA284BE9FB1B3C16E50@NigelPC> [Thomas Dehn] I join the club [of those who disagree with Nigel], too. I think that once you double first with that strong two, passing 3NT is absurd. I'd simply double, and it won't have to think to figure that out. Anybody who deliberately hesitates to communicate the hand to partner should be hit with L73. [Nigel] I don't think pass is absurd (although, as a player, I would double or bid 4H). Absurd or not, it seems that the expert player did, in fact, hesitate and pass. As a player, I think I would have a good chance of reading the message. But I wouldn't suspect a *deliberate* attempt at communication. (I suppose an up-to-date director like Thomas, schooled in the art of mind-reading, may be able to judge otherwise and penalize the hesitator). As a player, however, I would still expect the *partner* of the hesitator to be penalized, if the director judges there to be an logical alternative to the suggested heart lead. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 15 22:01:59 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:01:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Propiniquity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > Despite "style" being by Law 40B2(a) definition neither "meaning" > nor > "method", is it still disclosable as an "inference"??? > > Law 20F1: > > "...relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are > matters of partnership understanding..." > Not to my thinking. 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. Not sure I said that right, so I'll use two examples:. It is a near-universal principle that after making a weak preemptive bid a player must remain silent for the remainder of the auction unless forced to bid. Well, maybe a Lightner double of a slam is okay. Let's say that this agreement is pre-disclosed to opponents. That being so, no partnership experience related to partner's followups to a preemptive bid need be disclosed. "Does he often psych in this situation?" does not require an answer. 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. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 16 00:11:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:11:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007801ca35ee$0a2536a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ Perhaps Richard should publish his collection of the Aphorisms of Grattan. +=+ 16th July 2004: > Grattan Endicott: > > >+=+ As for that the laws that Moses brought > >down from the mountain were 'plain in shape' - > >simplicity, clarity and objectivity calcified - but > >this has not stopped thousands of years of > >interpretation, searches for loopholes, debate. > >Indeed, why has blml not taken up the subject? > >Or did I miss it? +=+ > > The Ten Commandments of Duplicate Contract Bridge > (with thanks to Arthur Hugh Clough, 1819-1861): > > Thou shalt have Grattan only; who > Would be at the expense of two? > No graven images may be > Worshipped, except WBF LC: > Swear oft at all; for when thou curse > Thy TD's hearing gets much the worse: > On bridge committees to attend > Will serve to keep the world thy friend: > Honour thy team-mates; that is, all > From whom post-mortems may befall: > Thou shalt not peek; but need'st not try > Officiously to move your eye: > Do not a psychic call commit; > Advantage rarely comes of it: > Thou shalt not dump; an empty feat, > When it's so lucrative to cheat: > Bear not false witness; let the lie > Have time on its own wings to fly: > Thou shalt not sponsor, but tradition > Approves all forms of competition. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > +=+ "Say not the struggle naught availeth, The labour and the wounds are vain, The enemy faints not, nor faileth, And as things have been, things remain." ~ A.H.C. 1855 +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 16 02:14:51 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:14:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001801ca3662$ca04fd60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > +=+ Perhaps Richard should publish his collection of the > Aphorisms of Grattan. +=+ > > 16th July 2004: > >> Grattan Endicott: >> >> >+=+ As for that the laws that Moses brought >> >down from the mountain were 'plain in shape' - >> >simplicity, clarity and objectivity calcified - but >> >this has not stopped thousands of years of >> >interpretation, searches for loopholes, debate. >> >Indeed, why has blml not taken up the subject? >> >Or did I miss it? +=+ >> >> The Ten Commandments of Duplicate Contract Bridge >> (with thanks to Arthur Hugh Clough, 1819-1861): >> >> Thou shalt have Grattan only; who >> Would be at the expense of two? >> No graven images may be >> Worshipped, except WBF LC: >> Swear oft at all; for when thou curse >> Thy TD's hearing gets much the worse: >> On bridge committees to attend >> Will serve to keep the world thy friend: >> Honour thy team-mates; that is, all >> From whom post-mortems may befall: >> Thou shalt not peek; but need'st not try >> Officiously to move your eye: >> Do not a psychic call commit; >> Advantage rarely comes of it: >> Thou shalt not dump; an empty feat, >> When it's so lucrative to cheat: >> Bear not false witness; let the lie >> Have time on its own wings to fly: >> Thou shalt not sponsor, but tradition >> Approves all forms of competition. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> > +=+ "Say not the struggle naught availeth, > The labour and the wounds are vain, > The enemy faints not, nor faileth, > And as things have been, things remain." > ~ A.H.C. 1855 +=+ > +=+ Oh well, if you are going to quote THAT Clough, so may we all.....+=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Sep 16 02:25:44 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:25:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Sau Paulo minutes 9/8/2009 Item 5 In-Reply-To: <3004CC443CA04EC48026BDB345D55F83@MARVLAPTOP> References: <10531545.1252704580802.JavaMail.root@ps28> <89604365ADEA4F0E9C8618293C3AF8A6@MARVLAPTOP><75EE4A1E-E950-41FD-8315-49D82C1308DE@starpower.net><4AAE4B0E.8090403@ulb.ac.be> <3004CC443CA04EC48026BDB345D55F83@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: "Marvin L French" writes: >>AG : I don't quite get it. >>If somebody does something illegal and the contract is pulled back to >>what it would have been absent the infraction, surely one risks a >>penalty (and formal hearing in blatant cases). >Marv: The ACBL's version of the law says nothing to this effect. It >aims at rectification without penalizing. An expert cheater would >not do anything "blatant," of course. The 3H bid might be quite >reasonable even though illegal (with passing an LA). UI is not an >irregularity in itself, remember. There is sometimes an implicit penalty. I recently had a hand on which the opponents used hesitation Blackwood. We played the hand out, and 6H went down, so we didn't call the TD back to request an adjustment. A player following the law would have been +650; the player who bid on got himself -100 instead. Had 6H made, the +1430 would have been rolled back to the same +680 that a law-abiding player would have earned. That said, more effort is needed, with proper application of "the worst score that was at all probable" (rather than average-minus or the expected score). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 16 03:55:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:55:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Alas! the great world goes its way, And takes its truth from each new day, They do not quit, nor can retain, Far less consider it again." (Arthur Hugh Clough) >...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). Alfie Kohn, author of "Punished by Rewards", said: "There are at least 70 studies showing that extrinsic motivators - including A's, sometimes praise, and other rewards - are not merely ineffective over the long haul but counterproductive with respect to the things that concern us most: desire to learn, commitment to good values, and so on. "Another group of studies shows that when people are offered a reward for doing a task that involves some degree of problem solving or creativity - or for doing it well - they will tend to do lower quality work than those offered no reward." Richard Hills: These two complementary sets of evidence suggest that the vast majority of bridge players need neither Ave+ rewards nor Ave- sanctions to abide by the Laws and play bridge. Indeed, the vast majority of bridge players prefer to play their own cards for a do-it-yourself mediocre result; not missing out on playing their own cards and instead getting an artificial reward of Ave+ after a Law 13 fouled board. Therefore, the Drafting Committee paid very particular attention to this unglamorous Law 13 (Incorrect Number of Cards). Under the 1997 Law 13, a killjoy opponent could require the board to be fouled, since in 1997 playing the board in corrected form required the concurrence of all four players. But under the 2007 Law 13 the Director is El Supremo, and the Director is much more likely to permit a corrected board to be played, since the Director has a safety net through the final sentence of the 2007 Law 13A: Law 13A - Director Deems Normal Play When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call. At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 16 04:34:56 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:34:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:55:46 -0400, wrote: > "Alas! the great world goes its way, > And takes its truth from each new day, > They do not quit, nor can retain, > Far less consider it again." > (Arthur Hugh Clough) > >> ...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). > > Alfie Kohn, author of "Punished by Rewards", said: > > "There are at least 70 studies showing that extrinsic > motivators - including A's, sometimes praise, and > other rewards - are not merely ineffective over the > long haul but counterproductive with respect to the > things that concern us most: desire to learn, > commitment to good values, and so on. > > "Another group of studies shows that when people are > offered a reward for doing a task that involves some > degree of problem solving or creativity - or for > doing it well - they will tend to do lower quality > work than those offered no reward." > > Richard Hills: > > These two complementary sets of evidence suggest that the > vast majority of bridge players need neither Ave+ rewards > nor Ave- sanctions to abide by the Laws and play bridge. > > Indeed, the vast majority of bridge players prefer to play > their own cards for a do-it-yourself mediocre result; not > missing out on playing their own cards and instead getting > an artificial reward of Ave+ after a Law 13 fouled board. > > Therefore, the Drafting Committee paid very particular > attention to this unglamorous Law 13 (Incorrect Number of > Cards). Under the 1997 Law 13, a killjoy opponent could > require the board to be fouled, since in 1997 playing the > board in corrected form required the concurrence of all > four players. But under the 2007 Law 13 the Director is > El Supremo, and the Director is much more likely to permit > a corrected board to be played, since the Director has a > safety net through the final sentence of the 2007 Law 13A: > > Law 13A - Director Deems Normal Play > > When the Director determines that one or more hands of the > board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law > 14) and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, > then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected > and played the deal may be so played with no change of call. > At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score. clap clap. I loved this change in the laws. It was thoughtful and right. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 16 07:20:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:20:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steven Johnson, Emergence, pages 149-155: >A threaded discussion board turns out to be >an ideal ecosystem for that peculiar species >known as the crank - the ideologue obsessed >with a certain issue or interpretive model, >who has no qualms about interjecting his or >her worldview into any discussion, and >apparently no day job or family life to keep >him from posting voluminous commentary at >the slightest provocation. [snip] >In a public discussion thread, not all the >participants are visible. A given >conversation may have five or six active >contributors and several dozen "lurkers" who >read through the posts but don't chime in >with their words. This creates a >fundamental imbalance in the system of >threaded discussion and gives the crank an >opportunity to dominate the space that would >be much more difficult off-line. BLML usage statistics for August 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 76 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 45 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 36 rfrick (at) rfrick.info BLML usage statistics for July 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 76 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 45 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 36 rfrick (at) rfrick.info BLML usage statistics for June 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 76 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 45 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 36 rfrick (at) rfrick.info Steven Johnson, Emergence, pages 149-155: [snip] >From a certain angle, Slashdot today >resembles an ant colony. From another, it >looks like a virtual democracy. Malda >himself likens it to jury duty. > >Here's how it works: If you've spent more >than a few sessions as a registered Slashdot >user, the system may on occasion alert you >that you have been given moderator status >(not unlike a jury summons arriving in your >mailbox). As in the legal analogy, >moderators only serve for a finite stretch >of time, and during that stretch they have >the power to rate contributions made by >other users, on a scale of -1 to 5. But >that power diminishes with use: each >moderator is endowed with only a finite >number of points that he or she can >distribute by rating user contributions. >Dole out all your ratings, and your tenure >as a moderator comes to an end. On a scale of -1 to 5, I rate Steven Johnson's book Emergence as a 4. Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From henk at ripe.net Wed Sep 16 08:54:21 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:54:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Corrected BLML Usage Statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for June 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 76 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 45 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 36 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 26 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 23 ehaa (at) starpower.net 17 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 14 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 13 blml (at) arcor.de 10 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 9 adam (at) irvine.com 8 swillner (at) nhcc.net 7 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 7 adam (at) tameware.com 7 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 6 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 5 svenpran (at) online.no 5 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 3 tedying (at) yahoo.com 3 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 3 gampas (at) aol.com 3 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 2 karel (at) esatclear.ie 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 2 blml (at) bridgescore.de 2 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 2 Gampas (at) aol.com 1 wmevius (at) hotmail.com 1 nigel.guthrie41 (at) virginmedia.com 1 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 1 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 1 lapinjatka (at) jldata.fi 1 geller (at) nifty.com 1 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk From henk at ripe.net Wed Sep 16 08:55:39 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:55:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Corrected BLML Usage Statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for July 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 92 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 76 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 45 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 43 svenpran (at) online.no 41 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 29 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 26 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 25 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 17 ehaa (at) starpower.net 15 blml (at) arcor.de 15 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 13 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 13 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 11 swillner (at) nhcc.net 8 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 8 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 7 schoderb (at) msn.com 7 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 7 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 6 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 5 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 5 adam (at) tameware.com 4 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 4 henk (at) ripe.net 4 cibor (at) poczta.fm 3 ranjubhattacharjee (at) hotmail.com 3 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 3 blml (at) bridgescore.de 2 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 2 rgtjbos (at) xs4all.nl 2 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 2 jimfox00 (at) cox.net 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 adam (at) irvine.com 1 tom (at) abacurial.com 1 sater (at) xs4all.nl 1 nbpfemu (at) bigpond.com 1 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 1 lskelso (at) ihug.com.au 1 jkljkl (at) gmx.de 1 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 1 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 1 ciska.zuur (at) planet.nl 1 bridgeinindia (at) gmail.com 1 bbickford (at) charter.net From henk at ripe.net Wed Sep 16 08:55:45 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:55:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Corrected BLML Usage Statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for August 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 83 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 71 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 71 ehaa (at) starpower.net 61 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 43 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 39 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 34 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 28 blml (at) arcor.de 20 swillner (at) nhcc.net 19 svenpran (at) online.no 18 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 11 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 8 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 8 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 7 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 7 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 7 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 6 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 6 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 6 geller (at) nifty.com 6 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 5 sater (at) xs4all.nl 5 adam (at) tameware.com 4 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 4 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 3 tedying (at) yahoo.com 3 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 3 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 3 cibor (at) poczta.fm 2 schoderb (at) msn.com 2 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 2 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 ciska.zuur (at) planet.nl 2 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 2 adam (at) irvine.com 2 Martin.Sinot (at) tridentmicro.com 1 wrgptfan (at) gmail.com 1 taigabridge (at) hotmail.com 1 jkljkl (at) gmx.de 1 jimfox00 (at) cox.net 1 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 1 bridge.bohnsack (at) t-online.de 1 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk From henk at ripe.net Wed Sep 16 09:07:39 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:07:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AB08EBB.9050805@ripe.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > BLML usage statistics for August 2009 > > Posts From > ----- ---- > 76 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au > 45 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk > 36 rfrick (at) rfrick.info > > BLML usage statistics for July 2009 > > Posts From > ----- ---- > 76 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au > 45 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk > 36 rfrick (at) rfrick.info > > BLML usage statistics for June 2009 > > Posts From > ----- ---- > 76 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au > 45 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk > 36 rfrick (at) rfrick.info Obviously something went wrong here. New statistics have been posted. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 16 09:15:45 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:15:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, intentional misquote: +=+ Perhaps Richard should publish his collection of the Aphorisms of Kojak. +=+ William ("Kojak") Schoder, July 2004: >>But then, you appear to want to use the laws as they were >>INTENDED, whereas there are some who are frustrated >>forensic scientists whose love in life is dissection. Nigel Guthrie, July 2004: >Again, Kojak applauds BLML experts who interpret TFLB, >intuitively and telepathically, rather than those >masochists who risk confusion and madness by examining the >meaning of its actual words. [snip] Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935): "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used." William ("Kojak") Schoder, July 2004: I stand revealed. But then I also stand to follow Law 81C5, with emphasis (mine) on the word "interpret." Does anyone think that it was put there erroneously, or unnecessarily? Or are we all so very much smarter than Edgar was, and can now do away with it? =K= The renumbered but not repealed 2007 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." William ("Kojak") Schoder, July 2004: Gee, and I thought I was pleading for understanding that the Law Book, -- I avoid TFLB when I can, sounds profane to me -- is not in the dire straits that some BLMLs want us to believe! It has served us remarkably well in many differing circumstances and cultures where the TDs and ACs have read the book, understand the intent of general and specific laws, and administer and interpret them. I strongly oppose the idea that we want or need laws in bridge that are word games out of context. The proper words don't need interpretation? Sure -- just tell me what BOW means and how you pronounce it! (Guess you have to have a context, eh?) [snip] Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Sep 16 09:17:15 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:17:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The next opponents Message-ID: <1MnolP-2LFOfQ0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> After the TD has called for a new round and you finally arrive at your next table you find your opponents sitting there - both having 13 cards in their hands and looking at them. You call for the TD. What is he expected to do? And why? Suppose the local regulations are quiet on that matter. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 16 10:33:09 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:33:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... Message-ID: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> Last saturday Antwerp saw its annual invasion by dutch players, with some 500+ pairs competing in the pub drive. This is played over more than 70 pubs, each with a local responsible. Of course most of those are not "real" TDs, and one of those told me the following story: Dummy plays a heart, and defender ruffs (revoking). Declarer overruffs. Now declarer crosses to the table in spades, and the same defender ruffs again, again revoking. How many penalty tricks is that? My friend was lucky: that ruff was the last trick the defenders made, so he just transferred that one. The things bridge playes sometimes do! Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 16 10:49:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:49:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The next opponents References: <1MnolP-2LFOfQ0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001c01ca36aa$95c11640$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:17 AM Subject: [BLML] The next opponents > After the TD has called for a new round and you > finally arrive at your next table you find your > opponents sitting there - both having 13 cards > in their hands and looking at them. > > You call for the TD. What is he expected to do? > And why? > > Suppose the local regulations are quiet on that matter. > +=+ Hmmm.... My first thought was "These players are in the auction period". True, but it does not help much. So where do we go? I suggest the 2007 addition to Law 81B1 now proves useful. He could perhaps rule that there has been a premature placement of the board since the board is "to be played" only when both sides are at the table (Law 7A). Some such thinking is required of the Director. He has an opportunity to display initiative, to rise above the Kaplanesque emasculation of thirty years ago. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Sep 16 11:48:09 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:48:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Village of the amsterDamned [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16 Sep 2009, at 02:55, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Indeed, the vast majority of bridge players prefer to play > their own cards for a do-it-yourself mediocre result; not > missing out on playing their own cards and instead getting > an artificial reward of Ave+ after a Law 13 fouled board. Players often talk of being "penalised" when their slow play means that they are unable to play a board, even though the 50% score they are awarded is actually an improvement on their result thus far. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090916/b8187a51/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 16 12:07:19 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:07:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Abomination In-Reply-To: <366ED692155B4EA284BE9FB1B3C16E50@NigelPC> References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com><4AAF4C61.2050209@ulb.ac.be> <4709097.1253036137343.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <366ED692155B4EA284BE9FB1B3C16E50@NigelPC> Message-ID: <4AB0B8D7.5050507@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Thomas Dehn] > I join the club [of those who disagree with Nigel], too. I think that once > you double first with that strong two, passing 3NT is absurd. I'd simply > double, and it won't have to think to figure that out. Anybody who > deliberately hesitates to communicate the hand to partner should be hit with > L73. > > [Nigel] > I don't think pass is absurd (although, as a player, I would double or bid > 4H). Absurd or not, it seems that the expert player did, in fact, hesitate > and pass. AG : Whether passing is absurd will be left aside. What is absurd, beyond any doubt, is taking a long time, then passing, because the expert player should have known he wouldn't go away with it. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 16 14:37:18 2009 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:37:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Abomination In-Reply-To: <4AB0B8D7.5050507@ulb.ac.be> References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com><4AAF4C61.2050209@ulb.ac.be> <4709097.1253036137343.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><366ED692155B4EA284BE9FB1B3C16E50@NigelPC> <4AB0B8D7.5050507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [Alan Gottcheiner] Whether passing is absurd will be left aside. What is absurd, beyond any doubt, is taking a long time, then passing, because the expert player should have known he wouldn't go away with it. [Nigel] Alan, are you saying that experts know that, in practice, it is better to bid after you hesitate, so as not to compromise partner? I agree with that. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 16 14:48:06 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:48:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Abomination In-Reply-To: References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com><4AAF4C61.2050209@ulb.ac.be> <4709097.1253036137343.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><366ED692155B4EA284BE9FB1B3C16E50@NigelPC> <4AB0B8D7.5050507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4AB0DE86.5060601@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alan Gottcheiner] > Whether passing is absurd will be left aside. What is absurd, beyond any > doubt, is taking a long time, then passing, because the expert player should > have known he wouldn't go away with it. > > [Nigel] > Alan, are you saying that experts know that, in practice, it is better to > bid after you hesitate, so as not to compromise partner? I agree with that. > I'm saying that they should know. Slight difference ;-) BTW, ordinary players know, or at least they pretend they do : 'I had hesitated ...' is a common excuse for bidding on zilch. From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 16 15:11:45 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:11:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Abomination In-Reply-To: References: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE6FB@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com><4AAF4C61.2050209@ulb.ac.be> <4709097.1253036137343.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net><366ED692155B4EA284BE9FB1B3C16E50@NigelPC> <4AB0B8D7.5050507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <13768288.1253106705755.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Alan Gottcheiner] > Whether passing is absurd will be left aside. What is absurd, beyond any > doubt, is taking a long time, then passing, because the expert player should > > have known he wouldn't go away with it. > > [Nigel] > Alan, are you saying that experts know that, in practice, it is better to > bid after you hesitate, so as not to compromise partner? I agree with that. Experts know that if they hesitate for a long time, their partner will then have UI, and must bend over backwards to avoid using that UI. An expert, after hesitating for a long time, can use one out of several approaches to resolve this problem, such as o make an unilateral decision that removes partner's choices o provide AI to partner In the example hand, if the expert doubles 3NT, that double then is AI, and in many partnerships it requests that partner leads his short suit, or his shorter major. Alternatively, if the expert bids 4H, that will show a one suited strong hand. 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 Sep 16 18:55:49 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:55:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Dummy plays a heart, and defender ruffs (revoking). Declarer overruffs. > Now declarer crosses to the table in spades, and the same defender ruffs > again, again revoking. > > How many penalty tricks is that? So defender revoked in two different suits? I make it one for the first revoke (defender not winning the trick) and two for the second (defender winning the trick) but of course limited in each case to tricks won at or after each respective revoke. Thus for example if defenders won the second revoke trick plus only one more later, only those two would be transferred. I have a feeling I'm missing something, though. This seems too easy. From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 16 19:59:26 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:59:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net> References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve > Willner > Sent: 16. september 2009 18:56 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > Dummy plays a heart, and defender ruffs (revoking). Declarer overruffs. > > Now declarer crosses to the table in spades, and the same defender > > ruffs again, again revoking. > > > > How many penalty tricks is that? > > So defender revoked in two different suits? I make it one for the first revoke > (defender not winning the trick) and two for the second (defender winning the > trick) but of course limited in each case to tricks won at or after each respective > revoke. Thus for example if defenders won the second revoke trick plus only one > more later, only those two would be transferred. > > I have a feeling I'm missing something, though. This seems too easy. After the 2007 revision revoke cases are (again) easy (possibly except when you have to consider Law 64C). Regards Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 16 20:43:22 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:43:22 -0700 Subject: [BLML] The next opponents References: <1MnolP-2LFOfQ0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> <001c01ca36aa$95c11640$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan: > From: "Peter Eidt" > > >> After the TD has called for a new round and you >> finally arrive at your next table you find your >> opponents sitting there - both having 13 cards >> in their hands and looking at them. >> >> You call for the TD. What is he expected to do? >> And why? >> >> Suppose the local regulations are quiet on that matter. >> > +=+ Hmmm.... My first thought was "These players are > in the auction period". True, but it does not help much. > So where do we go? I suggest the 2007 addition to > Law 81B1 now proves useful. He could perhaps rule > that there has been a premature placement of the board > since the board is "to be played" only when both sides > are at the table (Law 7A). This is getting ridiculous. Every time I quote a law I have to make sure that my ACBL edition does not differ "substantially" from the WBF edition. I must remember to use Richard's comparison to mark up the former, noting any differences. 81B1. The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy and omissions of the Tournament Organizer. Law 7A. Placement of Board When a board is to be played, it is placed in the centre of the table until play is completed. These hardly cover the situation. How about 7B2. Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Does this imply that four players must be at the table? Perhaps, but surely three are sufficient. What is needed is a sentence that says all four players must be seated at the table before anyone takes a hand from the board. Yes, four. There is too much chance of a tardy fourth "inadvertently" seeing another's cards before sitting down. The Tournament Organizer could impose that requirement, as permitted by 80B2: The Tournament Organizer's (or delegate's) powers include: 80B2(f) to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict, with these Laws. In the absence of such regulation, what is the poor TD to do? There has been no irregularity, evidently. How about L82A. It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. L82B. To rectify an error in procedure the Director may 1. award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws. I would have no problem with awarding the pairs avg+/avg- for this departure from normal procedure, but it is a stretch. The period of time between the early removal of hands and the arrival of opponents would affect this decision. Pairs regularly remove their hands from the board when seeing opponents approaching the table, and that is not a problem. A problem arises when the time period is sufficient for a seated player to examine their hand and (inadvertently, of course) produce UI in regard to its quality before an opponent is present to detect the UI. > Some such thinking is required of the Director. He > has an opportunity to display initiative... As in this case. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From schoderb at msn.com Wed Sep 16 21:05:17 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:05:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net> <000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no> References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net> <000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no> Message-ID: And of course, Sven, Law 64C ALWAYS must be considered no matter what computation results from A, and B. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Sven Pran To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve > Willner > Sent: 16. september 2009 18:56 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > Dummy plays a heart, and defender ruffs (revoking). Declarer overruffs. > > Now declarer crosses to the table in spades, and the same defender > > ruffs again, again revoking. > > > > How many penalty tricks is that? > > So defender revoked in two different suits? I make it one for the first revoke > (defender not winning the trick) and two for the second (defender winning the > trick) but of course limited in each case to tricks won at or after each respective > revoke. Thus for example if defenders won the second revoke trick plus only one > more later, only those two would be transferred. > > I have a feeling I'm missing something, though. This seems too easy. After the 2007 revision revoke cases are (again) easy (possibly except when you have to consider Law 64C). Regards Sven _______________________________________________ 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/20090916/e20ee657/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 16 22:11:21 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:11:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net> <000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no> Message-ID: <001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> Absolutely, and I always inform the non-offending side of Law 64C. However in at least nine out of ten cases I get the response "No chance I would have gotten more tricks without the revoke". The main improvement in 2007 was that I no longer need be concerned about the "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played" rule. This rule caused more headache than I care to recall in my memory. Regards Sven Kodak wrote: And of course, Sven, Law 64C ALWAYS must be considered no matter?what computation results from A, and B. ? Kojak In response to my remark: After the 2007 revision revoke cases are (again) easy (possibly except when you have to consider Law 64C). Regards Sven From tedying at yahoo.com Wed Sep 16 22:38:12 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net> <000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no> <001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> Message-ID: <754235.98881.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I actually prefer the old "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played rule." It more often than not exacted a penalty on the revoking side. I have found that since the reversion to the older ruling, that often the offending side will get off with the same result they would have had without the infraction. I prefer the deterrent nature of the penalty. I think it makes people pay more attention. The 2007 modification (I don't consider it an improvement) allows players to get lazy and not pay attention and get away with no worse than if they had paid attention. It also encourages defending partners not to inquire if their partner really was out of the suit. -Ted. ________________________________ From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:11:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... Absolutely, and I always inform the non-offending side of Law 64C. However in at least nine out of ten cases I get the response "No chance I would have gotten more tricks without the revoke". The main improvement in 2007 was that I no longer need be concerned about the "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played" rule. This rule caused more headache than I care to recall in my memory. Regards Sven Kodak wrote: And of course, Sven, Law 64C ALWAYS must be considered no matter what computation results from A, and B. Kojak In response to my remark: After the 2007 revision revoke cases are (again) easy (possibly except when you have to consider Law 64C). Regards Sven _______________________________________________ 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/20090916/744c3dbb/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Sep 16 23:01:23 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:01:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net><000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no><001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> <754235.98881.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002b01ca3710$da3807f0$2401a8c0@p41600> Me too, I hate the change. The old law contained, on occasion, a (sometimes ott) slap-on-the-wrist. Pay attention, why should you be protected from this sort of mistake but not others. If you play a stupid non-revoke card you have to pay the price. ********************** Too much C19H28O2 ********************** I actually prefer the old "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played rule." It more often than not exacted a penalty on the revoking side. I have found that since the reversion to the older ruling, that often the offending side will get off with the same result they would have had without the infraction. I prefer the deterrent nature of the penalty. I think it makes people pay more attention. The 2007 modification (I don't consider it an improvement) allows players to get lazy and not pay attention and get away with no worse than if they had paid attention. It also encourages defending partners not to inquire if their partner really was out of the suit. -Ted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:11:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... Absolutely, and I always inform the non-offending side of Law 64C. However in at least nine out of ten cases I get the response "No chance I would have gotten more tricks without the revoke". The main improvement in 2007 was that I no longer need be concerned about the "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played" rule. This rule caused more headache than I care to recall in my memory. Regards Sven Kodak wrote: And of course, Sven, Law 64C ALWAYS must be considered no matter what computation results from A, and B. Kojak In response to my remark: After the 2007 revision revoke cases are (again) easy (possibly except when you have to consider Law 64C). Regards Sven _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.99/2372 - Release Date: 09/15/09 05:59:00 -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 3326 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090916/d6841639/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 16 23:30:57 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:30:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004201ca3714$fc7fd4b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 2:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] . >>..... >>In this study, I am guessing there were social pressures to be on >>time -- to cooperate with the preschool, to avoid keeping the >>teacher late, etc. Those got taken away when the late fee was >>assessed, and the late fee was less powerful than the social >>pressures. That probably says a lot about how to run a bridge game >>-- everyone should be working together and cooperating to make the >>bridge as enjoyable as possible. > +=+ Setting a tariff may offer something to take advantage of ? +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 16 23:37:56 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:37:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <002b01ca3710$da3807f0$2401a8c0@p41600> References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net><000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no><001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> <754235.98881.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <002b01ca3710$da3807f0$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <001f01ca3715$f4676c60$dd364520$@no> To both of you: Please avoid posting in any other format than plain text! My experience during 30 years of directing is that offender has not gained anything from his revoke in the majority of cases. Therefore even just the one trick rectification (in addition to the revoke trick if he won that) does cause him a bad result in most cases. The "problem" with the "could have been legally played" rule was that too much uncertainty remained after the revoke before the correction could be decided. This forced the director to spend much time that eventually turned out to be just a waste of time. This rule was introduced in 1987 and I honestly do not think that it has been worth the extra burden it placed on the director for examining the complete play following any revoke where the offender did not win the revoke trick. Regards Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Larry BENNETT Sent: 16. september 2009 23:01 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... Me too, I hate the change. The old law contained, on occasion, a (sometimes ott) slap-on-the-wrist. Pay attention, why should you be protected from this sort of mistake but not others. If you play a stupid non-revoke card you have to pay the price. ? ********************** Too much C19H28O2 ********************** I actually prefer the old "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played rule."? It more often than not exacted a penalty on the revoking side.? I have found that since the reversion to the older ruling, that often the offending side will get off with the same result they would have had without the infraction.? I prefer the deterrent nature of the penalty.? I think it makes people pay more attention.? The 2007 modification (I don't consider it an improvement) allows players to get lazy and not pay attention and get away with no worse than if they had paid attention.? It also encourages defending partners not to inquire if their partner really was out of the suit. -Ted. ________________________________________ From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:11:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... Absolutely, and I always inform the non-offending side of Law 64C. However in at least nine out of ten cases I get the response "No chance I would have gotten more tricks without the revoke". The main improvement in 2007 was that I no longer need be concerned about the "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played" rule. This rule caused more headache than I care to recall in my memory. Regards Sven Kodak wrote: And of course, Sven, Law 64C ALWAYS must be considered no matter?what computation results from A, and B. ? Kojak In response to my remark: After the 2007 revision revoke cases are (again) easy (possibly except when you have to consider Law 64C). Regards Sven From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Sep 17 00:09:30 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:09:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <001f01ca3715$f4676c60$dd364520$@no> References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net><000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no><001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> <754235.98881.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <002b01ca3710$da3807f0$2401a8c0@p41600> <001f01ca3715$f4676c60$dd364520$@no> Message-ID: <9FC5D1B0-C419-4A85-A666-4C400F0A8B69@btinternet.com> On 16 Sep 2009, at 22:37, Sven Pran wrote: > The "problem" with the "could have been legally played" rule was > that too > much uncertainty remained after the revoke before the correction > could be > decided. This forced the director to spend much time that > eventually turned > out to be just a waste of time. The problem with it having been removed is that we now more often have to consider whether a L64C adjustment might be needed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090916/c5a6259e/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 17 00:29:49 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:29:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <9FC5D1B0-C419-4A85-A666-4C400F0A8B69@btinternet.com> References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net><000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no><001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> <754235.98881.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <002b01ca3710$da3807f0$2401a8c0@p41600> <001f01ca3715$f4676c60$dd364520$@no> <9FC5D1B0-C419-4A85-A666-4C400F0A8B69@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <002601ca371d$3425c430$9c714c90$@no> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: 17. september 2009 00:10 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... On 16 Sep 2009, at 22:37, Sven Pran wrote: The "problem" with the "could have been legally played" rule was that too much uncertainty remained after the revoke before the correction could be decided. This forced the director to spend much time that eventually turned out to be just a waste of time.? The problem with it having been removed is that we now more often have to consider whether a L64C adjustment might be needed. .............. And as I have already stated: My experience is that at least nine out of ten cases (probably even more) NOS reaction is that they would not need any L64C adjustment in addition to the L64A or L64B rectification. Still, L64C is far much simpler to apply than the "could have been legally played to the revoke trick" rule was. Regards Sven From taigabridge at hotmail.com Thu Sep 17 00:35:22 2009 From: taigabridge at hotmail.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:35:22 -0800 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote: >The main improvement in 2007 was that I no longer need be concerned about >the "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played" rule. >This rule caused more headache than I care to recall in my memory. This is very surprising to me. I always found checking the hand to see if a card that could have been played took a few seconds at most. In the past, this led to a routine application of the "subsequent trick" rule, and only on verrry rare occasion was there a situation where declarer had suffered 3 tricks worth of damage from the revoke. Under the new rule, I have several times had to take several minutes studying a hand to see what would have likely happened had the revoke not occurred. Any time the "subsequent trick" rule would have applied under the old laws, I now have a situation where the automatic penalty is 1 trick, and the actual damage cause is at least 1 trick. Now we have to look very carefully to see whether there were lines producing additional tricks that were abandoned because of whatever happened on the revoke trick. My experience is that thanks to L64C it is virtually always necessary now to make the same investigation of subsequent tricks that was required under the old laws -- but that investigation now involves much more effort since it is so much more common for 1 extra trick to be available than 2. Number of headaches saved by the simplification: zero. Number of new ones caused: at least one a month, for someone directing one club game a week. GRB _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Sep 17 00:56:12 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:56:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net><000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no><001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> <754235.98881.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002601ca3720$e4647370$2401a8c0@p41600> There is also, of course, the possibility that the revoke is deliberate. If there is a win/draw situation with no loose option one may as well revoke on every hand..until one gets caught that is! ********************** Too much C19H28O2 ********************** ----- Original Message ----- From: Ted Ying To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... I actually prefer the old "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played rule." It more often than not exacted a penalty on the revoking side. I have found that since the reversion to the older ruling, that often the offending side will get off with the same result they would have had without the infraction. I prefer the deterrent nature of the penalty. I think it makes people pay more attention. The 2007 modification (I don't consider it an improvement) allows players to get lazy and not pay attention and get away with no worse than if they had paid attention. It also encourages defending partners not to inquire if their partner really was out of the suit. -Ted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:11:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... Absolutely, and I always inform the non-offending side of Law 64C. However in at least nine out of ten cases I get the response "No chance I would have gotten more tricks without the revoke". The main improvement in 2007 was that I no longer need be concerned about the "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played" rule. This rule caused more headache than I care to recall in my memory. Regards Sven Kodak wrote: And of course, Sven, Law 64C ALWAYS must be considered no matter what computation results from A, and B. Kojak In response to my remark: After the 2007 revision revoke cases are (again) easy (possibly except when you have to consider Law 64C). Regards Sven _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.99/2372 - Release Date: 09/15/09 05:59:00 -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 3327 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090916/4539e6bc/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 17 03:33:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:33:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002601ca371d$3425c430$9c714c90$@no> Message-ID: 2007 Introduction (part of the Laws): "...They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged...Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers. There are fewer automatic penalties: they are replaced by the concept of rectification of a situation that unfortunately has arisen..." Ted Ying: >...I prefer the deterrent nature of the penalty. Richard Hills: I think that Ted Ying, by talking about "the penalty" has failed to fully appreciate the significance of the 2007 change to "the rectification". Ted Ying: >I think it makes people pay more attention. The 2007 modification >(I don't consider it an improvement) allows players to get lazy and >not pay attention and get away with no worse than if they had paid >attention... Richard Hills: Of course, what Ted seems to be saying is that the philosophy of rectification described in the 2007 Introduction is wrong. But if, in the 2018 edition of The Fabulous Law Book, there is a 180 degree reversal into a philosophy of deterrence, where is the line drawn? Attached is a suggested deterrence which would prevent anyone from revoking more than once. 2018 Law 64 - Procedure After Establishment of a Revoke A. Penalty Following a Revoke The revoking player shall be immediately taken from the bridge table to a place of execution, where he shall be immediately hanged, drawn and quartered by the Director. B. No Penalty There is no penalty for a revoke if the revoking player is due to be executed by the Director for an insufficient bid instead. C. Director Responsible For Equity If the Director deems that an inequitably low number of executions have occurred so far in this session, the Director may decimate the entire field of players. 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 17 03:53:09 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:53:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002601ca371d$3425c430$9c714c90$@no> Message-ID: <003301ca3739$9bb9a960$d32cfc20$@com> [RH] If the Director deems that an inequitably low number of executions have occurred so far in this session, the Director may decimate the entire field of players. [DALB] Decimate? Nah - that's not a 20% action. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 17 04:33:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:33:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The next opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01ca36aa$95c11640$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Peter Eidt: >After the TD has called for a new round and you finally >arrive at your next table you find your opponents sitting >there - both having 13 cards in their hands and looking at >them. > >You call for the TD. What is he expected to do? >And why? > >Suppose the local regulations are quiet on that matter. Law 8A1: "The Director instructs the players as to the proper movement of boards and progression of contestants." Richard Hills: At the Ruritanian Bridge Club the Director has given a prior instruction about "progression of contestants", to wit: "Do not look at your cards until your opponents have also progressed to the table." At other bridge clubs with no such prior instruction and/or prior regulation, no infraction has been committed (except a Law 90B2 "unduly slow play" infraction by the other pair). Suggestion for the 2018 Law 7B1: "Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position (but no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present)." Best wishes R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 17 10:26:00 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:26:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000b01ca3770$7dcfb6b0$796f2410$@no> On Behalf Of Gordon Bower > Sven Pran wrote: > > >The main improvement in 2007 was that I no longer need be concerned > >about the "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been played" rule. > >This rule caused more headache than I care to recall in my memory. > > This is very surprising to me. > > I always found checking the hand to see if a card that could have been played > took a few seconds at most. In the past, this led to a routine application of the > "subsequent trick" rule, and only on verrry rare occasion was there a situation > where declarer had suffered 3 tricks worth of damage from the revoke. > > Under the new rule, I have several times had to take several minutes studying a > hand to see what would have likely happened had the revoke not occurred. > Any time the "subsequent trick" rule would have applied under the old laws, I now > have a situation where the automatic penalty is 1 trick, and the actual damage > cause is at least 1 trick. Now we have to look very carefully to see whether there > were lines producing additional tricks that were abandoned because of whatever > happened on the revoke trick. > > My experience is that thanks to L64C it is virtually always necessary now to make > the same investigation of subsequent tricks that was required under the old laws -- > but that investigation now involves much more effort since it is so much more > common for 1 extra trick to be available than 2. > > Number of headaches saved by the simplification: zero. Number of new ones > caused: at least one a month, for someone directing one club game a week. The Director is never supposed to play the cards for a non-offender. When handling a revoke I explain to the players the "standard rectification" (according to Law 64 A or B, whichever is relevant) and add: "unless you believe you would have made a better result absent the revoke, in which case I shall evaluate the board". 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. And just to avoid any misunderstanding: I shall of course accept such claim from non-offender and evaluate the board also when the claim is made "post mortem" (within the correction period). I stand by my assertion. Regards Sven From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Sep 17 10:26:57 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:26:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <002601ca371d$3425c430$9c714c90$@no> References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net><000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no><001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> <754235.98881.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <002b01ca3710$da3807f0$2401a8c0@p41600> <001f01ca3715$f4676c60$dd364520$@no> <9FC5D1B0-C419-4A85-A666-4C400F0A8B69@btinternet.com> <002601ca371d$3425c430$9c714c90$@no> Message-ID: <1AD22AF6-C54C-4F7F-91E6-37AF1CB0A533@btinternet.com> On 16 Sep 2009, at 23:29, Sven Pran wrote: > Still, L64C is far much simpler to apply than the "could have been > legally > played to the revoke trick" rule was. Here I must disagree. A player revoked by failing to play a club. You simply asked "did you win a later trick with a club?". For 64C you need to go through the play of the entire hand. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090917/6ff36b74/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 17 10:38:48 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:38:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The next opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AB1F598.8020407@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Peter Eidt: > > >> After the TD has called for a new round and you finally >> arrive at your next table you find your opponents sitting >> there - both having 13 cards in their hands and looking at >> them. >> >> You call for the TD. What is he expected to do? >> And why? >> >> Suppose the local regulations are quiet on that matter. >> > > Law 8A1: > > "The Director instructs the players as to the proper > movement of boards and progression of contestants." > > Richard Hills: > > At the Ruritanian Bridge Club the Director has given a prior > instruction about "progression of contestants", to wit: > > "Do not look at your cards until your opponents have also > progressed to the table." > > At other bridge clubs with no such prior instruction and/or > prior regulation, no infraction has been committed AG : disagree. A potential infraction has been committed (having taken their cards from the wrong slots) and opponennts can't check, as is their duty at the table. Also, they could have exchenged information about their hands. For example, they could have thought they had a bye, and begun bidding the hands for fun. From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 17 10:48:26 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:48:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <1AD22AF6-C54C-4F7F-91E6-37AF1CB0A533@btinternet.com> References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net><000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no><001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> <754235.98881.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <002b01ca3710$da3807f0$2401a8c0@p41600> <001f01ca3715$f4676c60$dd364520$@no> <9FC5D1B0-C419-4A85-A666-4C400F0A8B69@btinternet.com> <002601ca371d$3425c430$9c714c90$@no> <1AD22AF6-C54C-4F7F-91E6-37AF1CB0A533@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <001901ca3773$9f47f3e0$ddd7dba0$@no> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > On 16 Sep 2009, at 23:29, Sven Pran wrote: >> Still, L64C is far much simpler to apply than the "could have been legally >> played to the revoke trick" rule was. > >Here I must disagree. A player revoked by failing to play a club. You simply asked "did you win a later trick with a club?". For 64C you need to go through the play of the entire hand. 1: You had to make certain that the offending side realizes the difference between "offending side won a subsequent trick with a club" and " offending player won a subsequent trick with a club". 2: When the revoke is discovered during the play and the offending player still holds a club in his hand you had to make certain that he was aware of the significance, and usually you should remain at the table until that club was disposed of. Now you can simply tell them to complete the play and apply the applicable rectification when scoring up the board. You don't need to waste any time remaining at the table. You must always test for possible application of Law 64 (both under the old laws and under the new laws) so the removal of the "could have been played" rule makes no difference in this respect. Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 17 10:24:57 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:24:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002701ca3773$a3dae980$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 2007 Introduction (part of the Laws): > > "...They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities > but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders > may otherwise be damaged...Directors have been given considerably > more discretionary powers. There are fewer automatic penalties: they > are replaced by the concept of rectification of a situation that > unfortunately has arisen..." > +=+1997: " The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." 1987: " The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." , 1975: "The Laws are not designed to prevent dishonourable practices, but rather to redress damage inadvertently done." The argument is that the distinction between 'rectification' and 'penalty' in the 2007 Laws is in line with the professed intention of many years. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 17 11:03:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:03:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The next opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4AB1F598.8020407@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003601ca3775$c444e070$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The next opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Peter Eidt:: > After the TD has called for a new round and you finally >> arrive at your next table you find your opponents sitting >> there - both having 13 cards in their hands and looking at >> them. >> Richard Hills: > At ..... bridge clubs with no ..... prior instruction and/or > prior regulation, no infraction has been committed > AG : disagree. A potential infraction has been committed (having taken their cards from the wrong slots) and opponennts can't check, as is their duty at the table. Also, they could have exchenged information about their hands. For example, they could have thought they had a bye, and begun bidding the hands for fun. < +=+ I have no doubt the intention is to prevent such a situation. The question is, what is the irregularity? How is "correct procedure" (see Introduction to the Laws) to be established under the Laws? It may be thought a Law 74A2 matter. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 17 11:00:00 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:00:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The next opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AB1F598.8020407@ulb.ac.be> References: <4AB1F598.8020407@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001a01ca3775$3cf7e220$b6e7a660$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Peter Eidt: > > > > > >> After the TD has called for a new round and you finally arrive at > >> your next table you find your opponents sitting there - both having > >> 13 cards in their hands and looking at them. > >> > >> You call for the TD. What is he expected to do? > >> And why? > >> > >> Suppose the local regulations are quiet on that matter. > >> > > > > Law 8A1: > > > > "The Director instructs the players as to the proper movement of > > boards and progression of contestants." > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > At the Ruritanian Bridge Club the Director has given a prior > > instruction about "progression of contestants", to wit: > > > > "Do not look at your cards until your opponents have also progressed > > to the table." > > > > At other bridge clubs with no such prior instruction and/or prior > > regulation, no infraction has been committed > AG : disagree. A potential infraction has been committed (having taken their cards > from the wrong slots) and opponennts can't check, as is their duty at the table. > Also, they could have exchenged information about their hands. For example, they > could have thought they had a bye, and begun bidding the hands for fun. The laws contain no rule directly applicable on this situation; the closest we can get is Law 7C: "....Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present." The director should be made aware of the situation and should then warn the "offenders" that removing cards from the board while being alone at the table makes them vulnerable to possible suspicion of having obtained extraneous information relevant to the board. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 17 11:04:35 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:04:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <001901ca3773$9f47f3e0$ddd7dba0$@no> References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net><000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no><001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> <754235.98881.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <002b01ca3710$da3807f0$2401a8c0@p41600> <001f01ca3715$f4676c60$dd364520$@no> <9FC5D1B0-C419-4A85-A666-4C400F0A8B69@btinternet.com> <002601ca371d$3425c430$9c714c90$@no> <1AD22AF6-C54C-4F7F-91E6-37AF1CB0A533@btinternet.com> <001901ca3773$9f47f3e0$ddd7dba0$@no> Message-ID: <4AB1FBA3.2050406@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > >> On 16 Sep 2009, at 23:29, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> Still, L64C is far much simpler to apply than the "could have been >>> > legally > >>> played to the revoke trick" rule was. >>> >> Here I must disagree. A player revoked by failing to play a club. You >> > simply asked "did you win a later trick with a club?". For 64C you need to > go through the play of the entire hand. > > 1: You had to make certain that the offending side realizes the difference > between "offending side won a subsequent trick with a club" and " offending > player won a subsequent trick with a club". > 2: When the revoke is discovered during the play and the offending player > still holds a club in his hand you had to make certain that he was aware of > the significance, and usually you should remain at the table until that club > was disposed of. > > Now you can simply tell them to complete the play and apply the applicable > rectification when scoring up the board. You don't need to waste any time > remaining at the table. > So apparently you do *not* disagree O:-) From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 17 15:17:07 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:17:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66A96FEE-AA87-45F6-8259-3718DB732C4E@starpower.net> On Sep 16, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Gordon Bower wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> The main improvement in 2007 was that I no longer need be >> concerned about >> the "won a subsequent trick with a card that could have been >> played" rule. >> This rule caused more headache than I care to recall in my memory. > > This is very surprising to me. > > I always found checking the hand to see if a card that could have > been played took a few seconds at most. In the past, this led to a > routine application of the "subsequent trick" rule, and only on > verrry rare occasion was there a situation where declarer had > suffered 3 tricks worth of damage from the revoke. > > Under the new rule, I have several times had to take several > minutes studying a hand to see what would have likely happened had > the revoke not occurred. > Any time the "subsequent trick" rule would have applied under the > old laws, I now have a situation where the automatic penalty is 1 > trick, and the actual damage cause is at least 1 trick. Now we have > to look very carefully to see whether there were lines producing > additional tricks that were abandoned because of whatever happened > on the revoke trick. > > My experience is that thanks to L64C it is virtually always > necessary now to make the same investigation of subsequent tricks > that was required under the old laws -- but that investigation now > involves much more effort since it is so much more common for 1 > extra trick to be available than 2. > > Number of headaches saved by the simplification: zero. Number of > new ones caused: at least one a month, for someone directing one > club game a week. Both problems could be solved by reverting to the pre-1987 (1975) law, under which the second trick, if won, was transferred regardless of what card it was won with. In those days, L64C was substantively the same as it is now, but was rarely needed, and the disincentive effect of the two-trick penalty was significant. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 17 16:16:04 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:16:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <66A96FEE-AA87-45F6-8259-3718DB732C4E@starpower.net> References: <66A96FEE-AA87-45F6-8259-3718DB732C4E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000b01ca37a1$64a49350$2dedb9f0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................ > Both problems could be solved by reverting to the pre-1987 (1975) law, under > which the second trick, if won, was transferred regardless of what card it was won > with. In those days, L64C was substantively the same as it is now, but was rarely > needed, and the disincentive effect of the two-trick penalty was significant. That is quite true, but now we are about to talk politics rather than justice. There is nothing to stop the politicians from deciding on a law that essentially say: If a player breaks any of the laws of bridge then expel him from bridge forever. WBFLC has chosen the fundamental principles for the laws of bridge we follow today. We may agree or disagree in the choice, but I personally believe they are on the right track. My main goal as a Director is to do my best for the players to enjoy the game and be looking forward for another bridge event with pleasant expectations. We don't achieve this by executing them, but my experience is that we do that when rectifying irregularities in a way that everybody find reasonable. The revoke laws are still such that a player may in a certain situation not get a trick for his Ace of trumps; I have heard many arguments on that and there is a question not to be ignored if this is "fair". Regards Sven. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 17 16:19:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:19:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... References: <66A96FEE-AA87-45F6-8259-3718DB732C4E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <004601ca37a1$e637a830$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... > > Both problems could be solved by reverting to the pre-1987 (1975) > law, under which the second trick, if won, was transferred regardless > of what card it was won with. In those days, L64C was substantively > the same as it is now, but was rarely needed, and the disincentive > effect of the two-trick penalty was significant. > +=+ Or we could just get on with life. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Sep 17 18:40:28 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:40:28 -0700 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002701ca3773$a3dae980$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: From: "Grattan" > > The argument is that the distinction between 'rectification' and > 'penalty' in the 2007 Laws is in line with the professed intention > of many years. But contrary to tradition. I never heard anyone complain about the word "penalty" in my 60 years of playing bridge. One LC member, an ACBL TD, defending "rectification," told me that LOL's were protesting the "penalty" provisions of L12C (Awarding an Adjusted Score), but that word was not in L12C. Tricks transferred because of a revoke are penalty tricks, not merely rectification tricks. I suppose that will change to an "equity" adjustment in the next Laws, so that a harmless revoke will not be penalized.. Nearly every other game has *penalties* for rules violations, which are not considered to be insulting by its players. Why should bridge be different? In a game context, "penalty" does not carry the pejorative connotations that it does in criminal law. Everyone except the WBFLC recognizes that. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Sep 17 20:06:02 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:06:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <66A96FEE-AA87-45F6-8259-3718DB732C4E@starpower.net> References: <66A96FEE-AA87-45F6-8259-3718DB732C4E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4AB27A8A.8000301@yahoo.co.uk> [Eric Landau wrote] Both problems could be solved by reverting to the pre-1987 (1975) law, under which the second trick, if won, was transferred regardless of what card it was won with. In those days, L64C was substantively the same as it is now, but was rarely needed, and the disincentive effect of the two-trick penalty was significant. [Nigel] I agree with Eric. As far a law-abiding players are concerned, most law simplifications, especially those that increase deterrence are improvements. Each law should ensure that there is a *negative expectation* for the law-breaker. Any penalty should be simple enough for the average player to appreciate what it is and why it's there. TFLB says "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." This seems compassionate and reasonable but on balance its effect is pernicious although it has advantages for some. - It delights law-breakers because it almost guarantees them a long-term profit. - It makes life easy for directors because law-breakers are less likely to make a fuss when ruled against. - Law-abiding players suffer because they can hope for some redress only on those occasions when an infraction is discovered, reported, and attracts an adverse ruling. They lose out otherwise. Worse, there is less incentive for victims to report an infraction when the expected redress is derisory (or non-existent). - Formerly law-abiding players may give up the unequal struggle. They may even convince themselves that they are conforming to WBFLC intentions. Especially as law-makers enact *unnecessary* laws that confer extra advantage on the law-breaker (eg those that add insult to injury such as "Double shot" and "Protect yourself" legislation). Directors need not execute offenders, as in Richard Hill's amusing 2018 scenario :( It is sufficient that the rules mandate that the director applies the same kind of mildly deterrent penalties as are imposed in other games -- enough to guarantee a *negative expectation* for the law-breaker :) From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 17 22:23:39 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:23:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: <4AB27A8A.8000301@yahoo.co.uk> References: <66A96FEE-AA87-45F6-8259-3718DB732C4E@starpower.net> <4AB27A8A.8000301@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <45A97CA8-49F7-4C47-A7C9-6FA3A27EA3E7@starpower.net> On Sep 17, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau wrote] > Both problems could be solved by reverting to the pre-1987 (1975) law, > under which the second trick, if won, was transferred regardless of > what > card it was won with. In those days, L64C was substantively the > same as > it is now, but was rarely needed, and the disincentive effect of the > two-trick penalty was significant. > > [Nigel] > I agree with Eric. As far a law-abiding players are concerned, most > law simplifications, especially those that increase deterrence are > improvements. > > Each law should ensure that there is a *negative expectation* for > the law-breaker. Any penalty should be simple enough for the > average player to appreciate what it is and why it's there. I was stating a fact, and am gratified that Nigel agrees. I was not, however, suggesting that I would favor a return to the pre-1987 law, which I agree with TPTB was a bit too Draconian (one could lose two tricks for a revoke that had no effect on the play whatsoever). Then again, I am not among those who has ever had any difficulty in applying the 1987 law, nor among those who comprehend the justification for changing it again in 2008. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From taigabridge at hotmail.com Fri Sep 18 09:22:31 2009 From: taigabridge at hotmail.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:22:31 -0800 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote, speaking of Law 64: > The Director is never supposed to play the cards for a non-offender. > > When handling a revoke I explain to the players the "standard rectification" > (according to Law 64 A or B, whichever is relevant) and add: "unless you > believe you would have made a better result absent the revoke, in which case > I shall evaluate the board". Eh? That's not what my law book says. My L64C says that when THE DIRECTOR DEEMS THAT the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated, he awards an artificial score. Asking the non-offenders what they believe they would have made is one way to get at that. We make the same speech in the US. But I see nothing in the laws that says that is the right way or the only way to do it. The tradition of asking this question worked reasonably well under the old laws, when the extra trick penalty compensated for all sorts of minor things that might have happened, and declarers were aware if a huge disaster cost them 3 tricks. It doesn't work nearly as well anymore. I still ask. But unless it is so obvious which tricks would be won that we don't even ask the question (one side wins all the rest except the one "subsequent trick", for instance)... I often get an answer like "I would have played the whole hand differently if they hadn't revoked at trick 3 - how would I know how many tricks I would have gotten?" Even very good players have false counts of their opponent's hands after a revoke and find it hard to know what they would have gotten under normal play. After I receive an answer like that, I believe I have to investigate whether they were insufficiently compensated or not. You, apparently, think it is OK to not care what would have happened. It has been a HUGE waste of time compared to the old laws, for me. _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/ From jmmgc1 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 18 10:24:45 2009 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?Sm9z6Q==?=) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:24:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I want to make a single comet about this topic. The new Law has about a year. On the fisrt par of this year I have been called to the table once each torunament. On the second part of the year I never been called to rule about this kind of revoke. Is it a coincidence?? Could be, but... Jos? Miguel Mart?nez -------------------------------------------------- From: "Gordon Bower" Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 9:22 AM To: Subject: Re: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... > > > Sven Pran wrote, speaking of Law 64: > >> The Director is never supposed to play the cards for a non-offender. >> >> When handling a revoke I explain to the players the "standard >> rectification" >> (according to Law 64 A or B, whichever is relevant) and add: "unless you >> believe you would have made a better result absent the revoke, in which >> case >> I shall evaluate the board". > > Eh? That's not what my law book says. > > My L64C says that when THE DIRECTOR DEEMS THAT the non-offending side is > insufficiently compensated, he awards an artificial score. > > Asking the non-offenders what they believe they would have made is one way > to get at that. We make the same speech in the US. But I see nothing in > the laws that says that is the right way or the only way to do it. > > The tradition of asking this question worked reasonably well under the old > laws, when the extra trick penalty compensated for all sorts of minor > things that might have happened, and declarers were aware if a huge > disaster cost them 3 tricks. It doesn't work nearly as well anymore. I > still ask. But unless it is so obvious which tricks would be won that we > don't even ask the question (one side wins all the rest except the one > "subsequent trick", for instance)... I often get an answer like "I would > have played the whole hand differently if they hadn't revoked at trick 3 - > how would I know how many tricks I would have gotten?" Even very good > players have false counts of their opponent's hands after a revoke and > find it hard to know what they would have gotten under normal play. > > After I receive an answer like that, I believe I have to investigate > whether they were insufficiently compensated or not. You, apparently, > think it is OK to not care what would have happened. > > It has been a HUGE waste of time compared to the old laws, for me. > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 21 17:24:11 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:24:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable Message-ID: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <002901ca3ad7$239be780$2401a8c0@p41600> Don't knock it, a rare pleasantry. lnb ********************** 'Tis better to keep one's mouth shut and appear stupid, rather than opening it an removing all doubt. ********************** > Silence. -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 3412 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 21 18:35:30 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <37145.24.46.179.117.1253550930.squirrel@email.powweb.com> > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " Alas! the great world goes its way, > And takes its truth from each new day, > They do not quit, nor can retain, > Far less consider it again." > (Arthur Hugh Clough) > ********************************* > > Silence. Richard's fault. For L64B7 (There is no rectification....when both sides have revoked on the same board), do both revokes have to be established? From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 21 21:57:49 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:57:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <37145.24.46.179.117.1253550930.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <37145.24.46.179.117.1253550930.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 11:35 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Remarkable >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> ******************************** >> " Alas! the great world goes its way, >> And takes its truth from each new day, >> They do not quit, nor can retain, >> Far less consider it again." >> (Arthur Hugh Clough) >> ********************************* >> >> Silence. > > Richard's fault. > > For L64B7 (There is no rectification....when both sides have revoked on > the same board), do both revokes have to be established? Actually, neither of those revokes need be established [where both sides revoke] as a different established revoke during the hand would then not be subject to 64A rectification. regards roger pewick From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 21 23:12:09 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:12:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:24:11 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " Alas! the great world goes its way, > And takes its truth from each new day, > They do not quit, nor can retain, > Far less consider it again." > (Arthur Hugh Clough) > ********************************* > > Silence. Or.... Is there a standard ruling for this? From today. North (defending) wins the trick but South leads a heart out of turn. Declarer chooses that North lead anything but a heart. South leads a small spade. From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 22 00:46:38 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:46:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............. > Is there a standard ruling for this? From today. North (defending) wins > the trick but South leads a heart out of turn. Declarer chooses that North > lead anything but a heart. South leads a small spade. Sure, the same laws (59, 49, 50) apply again. If declarer does not accept this second lead out of turn by South then he can no longer prohibit North from playing a heart, but he can require North to play (or prohibit him from playing) a spade. If Declarer decides not to require a spade led by North and North then leads a heart the Director should probably rule Law 23: South "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity (this second lead out of turn) that this could well damage the non-offending side". South deserves a solid PP for his second lead out of turn. Regards Sven. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 22 01:14:54 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:14:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> Message-ID: <01289F07D37747D88E5FCFEF5ADDE44B@erdos> "Sven Pran" writes: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............. >> Is there a standard ruling for this? From today. North (defending) wins >> the trick but South leads a heart out of turn. Declarer chooses that North >> lead anything but a heart. South leads a small spade. > > Sure, the same laws (59, 49, 50) apply again. > > If declarer does not accept this second lead out of turn by South then he > can no longer prohibit North from playing a heart, but he can require North > to play (or prohibit him from playing) a spade. South has two penalty cards now, so the lead penalties apply to both under Law 51. Declarer may forbid a heart (and the spade remains a penalty card), or require a spade (and the heart remains a penalty card), or forbid both suits (and both penalty cards are gone). From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 22 01:15:55 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:15:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:46:38 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............. >> Is there a standard ruling for this? From today. North (defending) wins >> the trick but South leads a heart out of turn. Declarer chooses that >> North >> lead anything but a heart. South leads a small spade. > > Sure, the same laws (59, 49, 50) apply again. > > If declarer does not accept this second lead out of turn by South then he > can no longer prohibit North from playing a heart, but he can require > North > to play (or prohibit him from playing) a spade. and the heart that was led out of turn stays in South's hand, right? > > If Declarer decides not to require a spade led by North and North then > leads > a heart the Director should probably rule Law 23: South "could have been > aware at the time of his irregularity (this second lead out of turn) that > this could well damage the non-offending side". This is probably not plausible. At her skill level, she assumes she will be punished for any irregularity. It would take a lot of skill with the laws to realize that declarer might lose the right to prohibit a heart lead. > > South deserves a solid PP for his second lead out of turn. > > Regards Sven. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 22 04:08:33 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:08:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The next opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003601ca3775$c444e070$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I have no doubt the intention is to prevent such a situation. Richard Hills: I have grave doubts as to what Edgar Kaplan's intentions were. In my youth I was the playing Director for Wednesday night walk-ins at the Tasmanian Bridge Association (applying Edgar's 1975 Lawbook). In those sessions it was routine for the stationary North or South, when dealer, to look at their cards and write their opening call on the bidding pad in order to save time when their East-West opponents finally arrived at the table. Grattan Endicott: >>The question is, what is the irregularity? Sven Pran: >The laws contain no rule directly applicable on this situation; the >closest we can get is Law 7C: "....Thereafter no hand shall be >removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the >Director, is present." Grattan Endicott: >>How is "correct procedure" (see Introduction to the Laws) to be >>established under the Laws? It may be thought a Law 74A2 matter. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: I strongly disagree with the Monty Python "he's making it up as he goes along" policy of arbitrarily using Law 74A2 to modify players' legal options granted under other Laws. W.S. Gilbert, "Iolanthe", intentionally misquoted: Law 74A2 is the true embodiment Of everything that's excellent. It has no kind of fault or flaw, And I, my Lords, embody the Law. Richard Hills: Under the previous 1997 Lawbook, an otherwise legal Law 15C strategy was "invalidated" by a WBF LC interpretation citing Law 74A2. (The strategy is now appropriately invalidated by the new final sentence of the 2007 Law 15C.) Sven Pran: >The director should be made aware of the situation and should then >warn the "offenders" that removing cards from the board while being >alone at the table makes them vulnerable to possible suspicion of >having obtained extraneous information relevant to the board. Richard Hills: Correct. Offenders = offenders, but "offenders" = the Scottish verdict of Not Proven. The situation is analogous to the famous "bathroom incident" in an American Trials, when both Meckwells - declarer and dummy - shared an unmonitored bathroom during the play of a hand. A rabid and not disinterested ACBL expert suggested that the entire Meckwell team should have been disqualified from the Trials, but the actual result of the Committee hearing was that there was not any evidence that the "offenders" had transmitted and received unauthorised information. 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 Tue Sep 22 09:10:00 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:10:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: <01289F07D37747D88E5FCFEF5ADDE44B@erdos> References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> <01289F07D37747D88E5FCFEF5ADDE44B@erdos> Message-ID: <000301ca3b53$b3148030$193d8090$@no> On Behalf Of David Grabiner ........ > "Sven Pran" writes: ........... > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > ............. > >> Is there a standard ruling for this? From today. North (defending) > >> wins the trick but South leads a heart out of turn. Declarer chooses > >> that North lead anything but a heart. South leads a small spade. > > > > Sure, the same laws (59, 49, 50) apply again. > > > > If declarer does not accept this second lead out of turn by South then > > he can no longer prohibit North from playing a heart, but he can > > require North to play (or prohibit him from playing) a spade. > > South has two penalty cards now, so the lead penalties apply to both under Law > 51. Declarer may forbid a heart (and the spade remains a penalty card), or > require a spade (and the heart remains a penalty card), or forbid both suits (and > both penalty cards are gone). No, the heart that was led out of turn first ceased to be a penalty card at the very moment declarer prohibited North from leading a heart. The fact that North did not manage to play any card before South committed his second irregularity is irrelevant in this respect. All information that North has available from that heart having been exposed is however still UI to North. Therefore also Law 16 can become applicable if North (otherwise legally) selects to play a heart. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 22 09:38:50 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:38:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: <000301ca3b53$b3148030$193d8090$@no> References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> <01289F07D37747D88E5FCFEF5ADDE44B@erdos> <000301ca3b53$b3148030$193d8090$@no> Message-ID: <000401ca3b57$ba731c20$2f595460$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven > Pran > Sent: 22. september 2009 09:10 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Remarkable > > On Behalf Of David Grabiner > ........ > > "Sven Pran" writes: > ........... > > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > > ............. > > >> Is there a standard ruling for this? From today. North (defending) > > >> wins the trick but South leads a heart out of turn. Declarer > > >> chooses that North lead anything but a heart. South leads a small spade. > > > > > > Sure, the same laws (59, 49, 50) apply again. > > > > > > If declarer does not accept this second lead out of turn by South > > > then he can no longer prohibit North from playing a heart, but he > > > can require North to play (or prohibit him from playing) a spade. > > > > South has two penalty cards now, so the lead penalties apply to both > > under > Law > > 51. Declarer may forbid a heart (and the spade remains a penalty > > card), > or > > require a spade (and the heart remains a penalty card), or forbid both > suits (and > > both penalty cards are gone). > > No, the heart that was led out of turn first ceased to be a penalty card at the very > moment declarer prohibited North from leading a heart. The fact that North did not > manage to play any card before South committed his second irregularity is > irrelevant in this respect. All information that North has available from that heart > having been exposed is however still UI to North. > Therefore also Law 16 can become applicable if North (otherwise legally) selects > to play a heart. > > Regards Sven On second thought: The prohibition lasts "for as long as he retains the lead" and I do consider North to retain the lead until another player has legally acquired it. In this case South legally acquires the lead only if declarer accepts his (second) lead out of turn (the lead of a spade). If not then North still retains the lead and is still prohibited from leading a heart (in addition to whatever restriction declarer may impose upon him from the LOOT of a spade). Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 22 12:06:49 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:06:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: <000401ca3b57$ba731c20$2f595460$@no> References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> <01289F07D37747D88E5FCFEF5ADDE44B@erdos> <000301ca3b53$b3148030$193d8090$@no> <000401ca3b57$ba731c20$2f595460$@no> Message-ID: <4AB8A1B9.3080208@skynet.be> Your second attempt is much better, Sven. I was not yet up to answering your first, wrong one. Surely a lead restriction cannot be undone by partner making a second infraction! Herman. Sven Pran wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Sven >> Pran >> Sent: 22. september 2009 09:10 >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Remarkable >> >> On Behalf Of David Grabiner >> ........ >>> "Sven Pran" writes: >> ........... >>>> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >>>> ............. >>>>> Is there a standard ruling for this? From today. North (defending) >>>>> wins the trick but South leads a heart out of turn. Declarer >>>>> chooses that North lead anything but a heart. South leads a small > spade. >>>> Sure, the same laws (59, 49, 50) apply again. >>>> >>>> If declarer does not accept this second lead out of turn by South >>>> then he can no longer prohibit North from playing a heart, but he >>>> can require North to play (or prohibit him from playing) a spade. >>> South has two penalty cards now, so the lead penalties apply to both >>> under >> Law >>> 51. Declarer may forbid a heart (and the spade remains a penalty >>> card), >> or >>> require a spade (and the heart remains a penalty card), or forbid both >> suits (and >>> both penalty cards are gone). >> No, the heart that was led out of turn first ceased to be a penalty card > at the very >> moment declarer prohibited North from leading a heart. The fact that North > did not >> manage to play any card before South committed his second irregularity is >> irrelevant in this respect. All information that North has available from > that heart >> having been exposed is however still UI to North. >> Therefore also Law 16 can become applicable if North (otherwise legally) > selects >> to play a heart. >> >> Regards Sven > > On second thought: The prohibition lasts "for as long as he retains the > lead" and I do consider North to retain the lead until another player has > legally acquired it. > > In this case South legally acquires the lead only if declarer accepts his > (second) lead out of turn (the lead of a spade). If not then North still > retains the lead and is still prohibited from leading a heart (in addition > to whatever restriction declarer may impose upon him from the LOOT of a > spade). > > Regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 22 13:33:18 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:33:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> <01289F07D37747D88E5FCFEF5ADDE44B@erdos> <000301ca3b53$b3148030$193d8090$@no><000401ca3b57$ba731c20$2f595460$@no> <4AB8A1B9.3080208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01ca3b78$7f03f300$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Remarkable > Your second attempt is much better, Sven. > I was not yet up to answering your first, wrong > one. > Surely a lead restriction cannot be undone by > partner making a second infraction! > > Herman. > +=+ In these extended situations the possibilities are multitudinous. Law 23 looms larger, with the Director staying alert for skulduggery. ~ G ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 22 13:54:53 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: <000c01ca3b78$7f03f300$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> <01289F07D37747D88E5FCFEF5ADDE44B@erdos> <000301ca3b53$b3148030$193d8090$@no><000401ca3b57$ba731c20$2f595460$@no> <4AB8A1B9.3080208@skynet.be> <000c01ca3b78$7f03f300$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4AB8BB0D.5060204@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ******************************** > " Alas! the great world goes its way, > And takes its truth from each new day, > They do not quit, nor can retain, > Far less consider it again." > (Arthur Hugh Clough) > ********************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:06 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Remarkable > > >> Your second attempt is much better, Sven. >> I was not yet up to answering your first, wrong >> one. >> Surely a lead restriction cannot be undone by >> partner making a second infraction! >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ In these extended situations the possibilities are > multitudinous. Law 23 looms larger, with the Director > staying alert for skulduggery. ~ G ~ +=+ > _______________________________________________ If the laws were so stupid as to allow a penalty to be dropped when partner makes a new infraction, then luckily they are smart enought to provide a loophole against their own stupidity. I prefer to believe that a player against whom a penalty has been issued (no spades) and who sees his partner make a new infraction, can still not lead spades (and will be subject to an additional penlaty on the new infraction). Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 22 19:20:32 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:20:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: <000301ca3b53$b3148030$193d8090$@no> References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> <01289F07D37747D88E5FCFEF5ADDE44B@erdos> <000301ca3b53$b3148030$193d8090$@no> Message-ID: <86FC9456-F437-412C-9C95-9816FBA0A44F@starpower.net> On Sep 22, 2009, at 3:10 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of David Grabiner > ........ >> "Sven Pran" writes: > ........... >>> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >>> ............. >>>> Is there a standard ruling for this? From today. North (defending) >>>> wins the trick but South leads a heart out of turn. Declarer >>>> chooses >>>> that North lead anything but a heart. South leads a small spade. >>> >>> Sure, the same laws (59, 49, 50) apply again. >>> >>> If declarer does not accept this second lead out of turn by South >>> then >>> he can no longer prohibit North from playing a heart, but he can >>> require North to play (or prohibit him from playing) a spade. >> >> South has two penalty cards now, so the lead penalties apply to >> both under > Law >> 51. Declarer may forbid a heart (and the spade remains a penalty >> card), > or >> require a spade (and the heart remains a penalty card), or forbid >> both > suits (and >> both penalty cards are gone). > > No, the heart that was led out of turn first ceased to be a penalty > card at > the very moment declarer prohibited North from leading a heart. The > fact > that North did not manage to play any card before South committed > his second > irregularity is irrelevant in this respect. All information that > North has > available from that heart having been exposed is however still UI > to North. > Therefore also Law 16 can become applicable if North (otherwise > legally) > selects to play a heart. However, although the heart ceased being a penalty card when declarer prohibited the heart lead, that prohibition did not cease being a prohibition. North may not lead a heart to the current trick. South's OOT spade play has given declarer additional options: he may require a spade lead, he may forbid a spade lead (in which case North must play a diamond or a club), or he may retain the spade as a penalty card, leaving North free to lead any non-heart. Because the heart is no longer a penalty card, however, he may not change his mind now and require (or permit) North to lead a heart. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 22 22:21:45 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:21:45 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws Message-ID: BLML, please help me out. Are there any Zonal Organizations other than the ACBL that claim the right to modify the WBF's 2007 Laws as they please? Or any National Bridge Organizations? Is that a legitimate right? If you are not familiar with WBF President Damiani's Foreword to the 2007 Laws (on ecatsbridge.com), please read it before answering. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 22 23:00:24 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:00:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:21:45 -0400, Marvin L French wrote: > BLML, please help me out. > > Are there any Zonal Organizations other than the ACBL that claim the > right to modify the WBF's 2007 Laws as they please? Or any National > Bridge Organizations? > > Is that a legitimate right? > > If you are not familiar with WBF President Damiani's Foreword to the > 2007 Laws (on ecatsbridge.com), please read it before answering. Sven reports that in the Norwegian version of the laws, "trait" is replaced with a word that translates back into English roughly as "behavior". In L16A2. That's a substantial improvement in the law. Sven didn't seem concerned to change the translation. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 23 00:14:10 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:14:10 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: Message-ID: <3D301524D1EB419C875A5B9EA874FA36@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Frick" > Marv wrote: >> BLML, please help me out. >> >> Are there any Zonal Organizations other than the ACBL that claim >> the >> right to modify the WBF's 2007 Laws as they please? Or any >> National >> Bridge Organizations? >> >> Is that a legitimate right? >> >> If you are not familiar with WBF President Damiani's Foreword to >> the >> 2007 Laws (on ecatsbridge.com), please read it before answering. > > Sven reports that in the Norwegian version of the laws, "trait" is > replaced with a word that translates back into English roughly as > "behavior". In L16A2. That's a substantial improvement in the law. > Sven > didn't seem concerned to change the translation. I should have been clearer. I meant "modify the WBF's 2007 Laws in substantive ways." Translations that improve the understanding, and reformatting (even to the extent of adding a table of contents) are perfectly okay. The French have been very good at translating ambiguous English into precise French, for instance. But how about adding language that changes intent, or adding new laws? Chip Martel maintains that zones have the right to do that, but I can't find that right on the WBF web site (worldbridge.org), not in the WBF Constitution, which defines "zones," nor in the WBF By-laws, which define their purposes. Looking at those By-laws, I see this under Zonal Changes: a. The Executive (Council) shall have power to require each zone to submit its Constitution and By Laws [which must?] conform to the principles established by the WBF Constitution and its By-laws. The ACBL's current By-laws say that the ACBL LC has the power to "prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and rubber bridge will be governed." Does that conform? Quite possibly. Yes, if "prepare" means to participate in the drafting of new Laws by the WBFLC, download the result, modify them as permitted in the text of the Laws, and publish them with the required identification of the source of the Laws. Otherwise, no. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 23 04:57:06 2009 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:57:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net><000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no><001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> <754235.98881.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com><002b01ca3710$da3807f0$2401a8c0@p41600><001f01ca3715$f4676c60$dd364520$@no> <9FC5D1B0-C419-4A85-A666-4C400F0A8B69@btinternet.com> Message-ID: GR: The problem with it having been removed is that we now more often have to consider whether a L64C adjustment might be needed. SR: And, as mentioned before, the deterrent effect is gone. I really don't like that, because it gives people an incentive to try it on. I don't think that there are many who actually would do this, but there are always some who will, now that they have nothing to lose. Stefanie Rohan London, England __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4448 (20090922) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090923/f5d768bf/attachment-0001.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 23 05:08:04 2009 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:08:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> Message-ID: What happens if declarer requires a heart lead from North, and South now leads another heart (or the same heart again). Can declarer now change his mind about the heart lead from North? __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4448 (20090922) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 23 11:12:13 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:12:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a non-TD tells ... References: <4AB0A2C5.70309@skynet.be> <4AB11895.7090800@nhcc.net><000901ca36f7$6e856b60$4b904220$@no><001101ca3709$dc4c9440$94e5bcc0$@no> <754235.98881.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com><002b01ca3710$da3807f0$2401a8c0@p41600><001f01ca3715$f4676c60$dd364520$@no><9FC5D1B0-C419-4A85-A666-4C400F0A8B69@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <003901ca3c2d$f7fbce30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> I was in the French team in charge of the translation of the 2007 Laws. For everybody it was very clear that we have not the right to change the meaning of the Laws. But we want to make them as clear as possible for the French TDs. When a NBO have an option we choose the option selected by the EBL. For the French TDs it is very clear that the Laws must be the same everywhere in the world. We are disappointing because the regulations for the use of the bidding boxes and the screens depend on each NBO. We think that it must be a part of the Laws... Jean-Fran?ois Marvin L French a ?crit : > BLML, please help me out. > > Are there any Zonal Organizations other than the ACBL that claim the > right to modify the WBF's 2007 Laws as they please? Or any National > Bridge Organizations? > > Is that a legitimate right? > > If you are not familiar with WBF President Damiani's Foreword to the > 2007 Laws (on ecatsbridge.com), please read it before answering. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 23 11:40:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> Message-ID: <004201ca3c31$ee046550$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 4:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Remarkable > What happens if declarer requires a heart lead from > North, and South now leads another heart (or the > same heart again). Can declarer now change his > mind about the heart lead from North? > +=+ At this point North may opt to shoot South. That aside, it seems to me that all the conditions specified in Law 50D2 are again in place and declarer has the choice stated in that law. I do not see that he is bound by what he did in respect of a previous penalty card. Perhaps the Director should be wary of assuming that he will choose the same option. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 23 13:43:13 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:43:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: <001501ca3c43$0c9dbd20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws 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 ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Thu Sep 24 01:15:54 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:15:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> [Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier] I was in the French team in charge of the translation of the 2007 Laws. For everybody it was very clear that we have not the right to change the meaning of the Laws. But we want to make them as clear as possible for the French TDs. 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 disappointing 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... [Nigel] IMO Jean is right. It would help to create a level playing field if the rules about bidding boxes, screens, convention cards, alerting and so on were part of the law-book. At the very least it would provide a default set of rules for most NBOs, even if a few Bolshy local jurisdiction insisted on idiosyncratic variations. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 25 00:53:02 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:53:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Remarkable In-Reply-To: <004201ca3c31$ee046550$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000201ca3acf$a8985fc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000401ca3b0d$61665330$2432f990$@no> <004201ca3c31$ee046550$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Again, the situation is that South has led a heart out of turn, Declarer requested that North not lead a heart, South picked up the heart and then led a spade out of turn. With a week to think about it and hear all of the discussion, I think there is (surprisingly) a stand-out good ruling: The prohibition against a heart lead stands, and declarer has three new choices: 1. Prohibit a spade lead. The spade is picked up and North cannot lead a spade or heart 2. Insist on a spade lead. The spade is picked up. If North does not have any spades, North cannot lead a heart. 3. The spade stays on the table as a penalty card and North cannot lead a heart. David Grabiner suggested *undoing" the initial heart decision -- the heart is returned to the table and director follows the rules for two exposed penalty cards. I think that procedure is fair and equitable and clear. But I think the above suggestion is more consistent with the spirit of the laws -- there really isn't any logical justification for undoing the heart decision. This procedure also doesn't seem to work well for Stephanie's situation, when the second lead out of turn is in the same suit. Another idea was to cancel the requirement not to lead a heart and acting like that irregularity and decision never occurred. This leads to problems. To mention a new one, declarer selects the option to require a heart lead. Now there is a spade lead out of turn and the option to require a heart lead disappears. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Sep 25 18:53:16 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:53:16 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: From: "Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier" I was in the French team in charge of the translation of the 2007 Laws. For everybody it was very clear that we have not the right to change the meaning of the Laws. But we want to make them as clear as possible for the French TDs. ###### I see that Damiani's Foreword was included in your edition. That was admirable. The ACBL and the English (EBU) omitted it completely, even the part that Damiani requested be included as a minimum (a WBF copyright notice). Oddly, the WBF itself doesn't include it. Anna Gudge of ecatsbridge.com was asked to put it on her web site, but there it is merely a separate item, not integral with the 2007 Laws. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Sep 25 19:30:50 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:30:50 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <001501ca3c43$0c9dbd20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <27ECD87ED25744A781CF2A0564925F52@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" >Incidentally some work was done on the Systems Policy in Sao Paulo. >Something to look out for on the web sites. I can't find that in the WBF LC minutes from Sao Paulo. And where are those minutes? Did I miss your supplying them, directly or indirectly, for BLML, as you promised? They are not on the WBF web site or ecatsbridge.com. I had to get them from an Australian friend! Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Sep 26 09:40:22 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 09:40:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: 2009/9/25 Marvin L French : > > From: "Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier" > > I was in the French team in charge of the translation of the 2007 > Laws. > For everybody it was very clear that we have not the right to change > the > meaning of the Laws. But we want to make them as clear as possible > for > the French TDs. > > ###### > I see that Damiani's Foreword was included in your edition. That was > admirable. The ACBL and the English (EBU) omitted it completely, > even the part that Damiani requested be included as a minimum (a WBF > copyright notice). Oddly, the WBF itself doesn't include it. Anna > Gudge of ecatsbridge.com was asked to put it on her web site, but > there it is merely a separate item, not integral with the 2007 Laws. That's pretty strange IMO. We included all of Damiani's foreword in the Norwegian edition. Really couldn't see any reason not to. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 26 12:31:42 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:31:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net><001501ca3c43$0c9dbd20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <27ECD87ED25744A781CF2A0564925F52@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <002601ca3e94$8c9e58b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws > > From: "Grattan" > >>Incidentally some work was done on the Systems Policy in Sao Paulo. >>Something to look out for on the web sites. > > I can't find that in the WBF LC minutes from Sao Paulo. And where > are those minutes? Did I miss your supplying them, directly or > indirectly, for BLML, as you promised? They are not on the WBF web > site or ecatsbridge.com. I had to get them from an Australian > friend! > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > +=+ I supplied them, as an attachment, to Henk but I deduce he has not found a way of putting them onto blml. The WBFLC has no responsibility for the Systems Policy. That is the concern of the WBF Systems Committee. I am not in the least surprised you find no mention of the subject in the WBFLC minutes. When Anna Gudge is able to dispose of the mountain of matters awaiting her return from Brazil I have no doubt she will turn to the website publication of Laws and Systems docs from the Sao Paulo meetings. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 26 13:00:48 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:00:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: <003701ca3e98$9cae9a40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws > 2009/9/25 Marvin L French : >> >> ###### >> I see that Damiani's Foreword was included in your >> edition. That was admirable. The ACBL and the >> English (EBU) omitted it completely, < +=+ My understanding is that the ACBL wishes to maintain its claim of copyright within Zone 2 and the Portland Club likewise within the United Kingdom. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Sep 26 20:12:39 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:12:39 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net><001501ca3c43$0c9dbd20$0302a8c0@Mildred><27ECD87ED25744A781CF2A0564925F52@MARVLAPTOP> <002601ca3e94$8c9e58b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <612F8539E872459D802D90CDDFE65A63@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" Marv wrote, in regard to the WBFLC minutes from Sao Paulo: >> And where >> are those minutes? Did I miss your supplying them, directly or >> indirectly, for BLML, as you promised? They are not on the WBF >> web >> site or ecatsbridge.com. I had to get them from an Australian >> friend! >> >I supplied them, as an attachment, to Henk but I deduce he has not found a way of putting them onto blml. >When Anna Gudge is able to dispose of the mountain of matters awaiting her return from Brazil I have no doubt she will turn to the website publication of Laws and Systems docs from the Sao Paulo meetings. And when, one wonders, will the WBF update its web site to add these minutes? Under departments/laws/cmte_minutes.asp appear all the minutes thru the Beijing 2008 meeting. The WBF webmaster isn't doing a great job, as when he/she did not include Damiani's Foreword in the 2007 Laws. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Sep 27 01:38:59 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:38:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <003701ca3e98$9cae9a40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: From: "Grattan" Marv wrote: > >>> ###### >>> I see that Damiani's Foreword was included in your >>> edition. That was admirable. The ACBL and the >>> English (EBU) omitted it completely, > +=+ My understanding is that the ACBL wishes to > maintain its claim of copyright within Zone 2 and the > Portland Club likewise within the United Kingdom. Okay, so I go to the EBU web site and see that the 2007 Laws are "Promulgated by the WBF and approved by the WBF Laws Committee, the Portland Club, the European Bridge League, and the American Contract Bridge League" (false, the ACBL didn't approve it). English Publishers: The English Bridge Union Ltd. by arrangement with the Portland Club This edition of the laws of duplicate bridge is published for the United Kingdom by the English Bridge Union, Ltd. First printed April 2008 All rights reserved including the right to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. Copyright 2008 Portland Club [That always amazes me. Are Ireland, Wales, and Scotland TDs/players really not allowed to download the Laws? If they may not, why provide the download?] And where does the EBU get off stating that it has control of the Laws' content for the United Kingdom? Where does that authority come from? It is only an NBO, not a Zonal Conference. Not to mention that the Portland Club isn't even an NBO. Back to the copyright subject. The WBF said that it has the copyright for its version of the 2007 Laws, but permits a download to any NBO or Zone provided that its copyright notice is included. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem legal to download a copyrighted document and then publish it without the requested attribution, especially when making unauthorized changes to it (as the ACBL did). I am sure copyrighting the result would be okay with that attribution and only reformatting changes. Let me quote what WBF President Damiani wrote in the Foreword to the Laws: Thus the WBF is happy to make its copyright freely available to the NBOs either in English or for translation into their own language. NBOs may utilise the text on the Web Site (and this foreward if they wish), but if they print in any format they are requested to put the following: The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 Copyright World Bridge Federation etc. etc. Okay, I guess that the bridge lawyers will say that a request is not a requirement. Damiani shouldn't have been so polite. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 27 12:10:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:10:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net><001501ca3c43$0c9dbd20$0302a8c0@Mildred><27ECD87ED25744A781CF2A0564925F52@MARVLAPTOP><002601ca3e94$8c9e58b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <612F8539E872459D802D90CDDFE65A63@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001501ca3f5a$cd4b2160$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws > > And when, one wonders, will the WBF update its web site to add these minutes? Under departments/laws/cmte_minutes.asp appear all the minutes thru the Beijing 2008 meeting. The WBF webmaster isn't doing a great job, > +=+ He is waiting on material from Anna also. She is the channel through which it goes. I don't know why you are going on about it. You said you had a copy. Stop boring us. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Sun Sep 27 13:47:44 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:47:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <001501ca3f5a$cd4b2160$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net><001501ca3c43$0c9dbd20$0302a8c0@Mildred><27ECD87ED25744A781CF2A0564925F52@MARVLAPTOP><002601ca3e94$8c9e58b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <612F8539E872459D802D90CDDFE65A63@MARVLAPTOP> <001501ca3f5a$cd4b2160$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4ABF50E0.80103@yahoo.co.uk> [Grattan] +=+ He is waiting on material from Anna also. She is the channel through which it goes. I don't know why you are going on about it. You said you had a copy. Stop boring us. ~ G ~ +=+ [Nigel] Marvin is not the only Bridge-player waiting with baited breath for official news. A few of us are keen to know the decision on the proposal to clarify corrections and interpretations reported in minutes, by showing how they change the actual words of relevant laws and regulations. From geller at nifty.com Mon Sep 28 02:52:25 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:52:25 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <4ABF50E0.80103@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net><001501ca3c43$0c9dbd20$0302a8c0@Mildred><27ECD87ED25744A781CF2A0564925F52@MARVLAPTOP><002601ca3e94$8c9e58b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <612F8539E872459D802D90CDDFE65A63@MARVLAPTOP> <001501ca3f5a$cd4b2160$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4ABF50E0.80103@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4AC008C9.9090308@nifty.com> Are you sure you don't mean bated breath? Or has he been swallowing worms lately? :-) -Bob Nigel Guthrie ????????: > [Grattan] > +=+ He is waiting on material from Anna also. She is the channel > through which it goes. I don't know why you are going on about it. You > said you had a copy. Stop boring us. ~ G ~ +=+ > > [Nigel] > Marvin is not the only Bridge-player waiting with baited breath for > official news. A few of us are keen to know the decision on the proposal > to clarify corrections and interpretations reported in minutes, by > showing how they change the actual words of relevant laws and regulations. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From adam at tameware.com Mon Sep 28 04:11:04 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:11:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ cases posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd40909271905l6944161exc643eb3e3387f1fa@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40909271905l6944161exc643eb3e3387f1fa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40909271911n12604ea5h57a191205f60b20f@mail.gmail.com> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Washington2009.html I haven't yet started to write my comments. If you want to discuss any of these cases please create a separate thread and include the case number in the Subject. AW From nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com Mon Sep 28 04:18:02 2009 From: nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:18:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <4AC008C9.9090308@nifty.com> References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net><001501ca3c43$0c9dbd20$0302a8c0@Mildred><27ECD87ED25744A781CF2A0564925F52@MARVLAPTOP><002601ca3e94$8c9e58b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <612F8539E872459D802D90CDDFE65A63@MARVLAPTOP> <001501ca3f5a$cd4b2160$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4ABF50E0.80103@yahoo.co.uk> <4AC008C9.9090308@nifty.com> Message-ID: <4AC01CDA.9010303@yahoo.co.uk> [Robert Geller] Are you sure you don't mean bated breath? Or has he been swallowing worms lately? :-) {Nigel] I have hissed all Grattan's mystery lectures. I have tasted the whole worm. I must leave on the town drain (: From adam at tameware.com Mon Sep 28 05:34:28 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:34:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 1 In-Reply-To: <2595ECFAE1124FC8AE827CC356E71641@MARVLAPTOP> References: <694eadd40909060957h33cae8a8y56635768f4c7dd83@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909061002q1d0f9f73s59ccd9725ea4dbc4@mail.gmail.com> <786C55FB49DF4822BEFCDC3D01444411@MARVLAPTOP> <694eadd40909071428g2b8e883ah658725873ffff773@mail.gmail.com> <2595ECFAE1124FC8AE827CC356E71641@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <694eadd40909272034y56e811dcg47611e53cc3c56c4@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Marvin L French wrote: > > From: "Adam Wildavsky" < > > Marvin L French wrote: > > > > * E-W were supposed to have a written description of the 2D > > convention available for the opponents. No, not an ACBL-approved > > defense, I didn't say that. Just a written description, as > > required > > by the ACBL Mid-Chart. > > Adam: > > Indeed they were, but I've never yet met a pair who provided one. > > Marv: > > Nor I. ACBL regulations are not enforced, even at NABC+ levels. The > hardworking C&C committee debates for hours about convention charts, > the Alert procedure, and convention card requirements. The results > are forwarded to the BoD as recommendations, the BoD endorses them, > and they become ACBL regulations. The scofflaws ignore them at will, > and the TDs and ACs do not enforce them. I am surprised that Adam > seems to think that is okay. > > In the Washington NABC my wife and I played in the Bruce Life Master > Pairs, limited to players with no more than 5,000 masterpoints. > Since this is masterpoint-lmited, Mid-Chart conventions were not > legal. However, DIC Solly said it was okay to use them, so my > protest got nowhere. None came up at my table. Good thing, because > our partnership isn't prepared to counter them, which is why we > entered the limited event. I would complain about this, but can't > find anyone in charge to whom I could complain. The ACBL needs a > Chief Tournament Director, but the position has been abolished. > > Adam: > > What would it have said? "2D shows either hearts or spades, but not > both." I think NS understood that part well. > > Marv: > > The possible advances of the 2D bid are quite extensive, not just > 2H or 2S, and the actions to be taken if the other side acts are > quite complicated. Opponents should know about these things, and a > detailed description offered in the Pre-Alert period would provide > that information. We don't know whether N-S would have done better > had the correct procedure been followed. That would be up to an AC > to decide. Not this AC, but a knowledgeable one. > Always the diplomat, Marv! I have never seen a pair discuss defenses to advances over a double of 2D, with or without a pre-alert. These discussions may be important, but conducting them at the table is not practical. I can't prove that it would not have happened, but it does not seem at all probable. AW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090928/a6f72e5c/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Mon Sep 28 05:40:37 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:40:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694eadd40909272040o159b0409gde360b6c355d233e@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM, wrote: > Eric Landau: > > >...More often than not, whether or not there was a BIT is the most > >difficult and contentious of the necessary findings. It is routine > >for committees to look at other aspects of these appeals first in > >order to ascertain whether or not such a finding is needed, in the > >hope of not being there all night. > > Richard Hills: > > Que? > > Surely determination of whether or not there was a break in tempo > should primarily be the responsibility of the Director at the table, > who had the advantage of contemporaneously questioning the players. > > Given that the memories of all four players get blurred after a few > hours, then only very rarely should an Appeals Committee overturn > the Director's assessment (e.g. evidence from a neutral and credible > kibitzer might prompt such a rare reversal). > > Or is Eric referring to the daft and unLawful ACBL policy that all > Appeals Committees must completely ignore the table Director's > decisions, and rehear the entire ruling from scratch? > > Law 92A, first sentence: > > "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a **review** of any > ruling made at his table by the Director." > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > review, v.t. & i, View again, subject to revision, survey, glance > over, look back on > ACBL committees do not ignore the TD's ruling, nor his fact finding. At present they do make their own rulings, rather than presuming the TD's ruling is correct per the WBF Code of Practice. This does not make as big a difference as one might think. In any case there is nothing in our regulations suggesting that we can or should ignore the TD's observations. In fact we usually give them great weight. AW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090928/b235eae6/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 28 08:12:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:12:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AC01CDA.9010303@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >I have hissed all Grattan's mystery lectures. I have tasted the whole >worm. I must leave on the town drain (: William Archibald Spooner (1844-1930): "Her late husband, you know, a very sad death -- eaten by missionaries -- poor soul!" WBF LC missionary position, 4th September 2009: The Chairman said that it is possible to make a change in the law if only with great reluctance. The Secretary observed that a more common practice had been to add footnotes. Richard Hills asks: So the unauthorised ACBL footnote to Law 12 is not a law change? WBF LC missionary position, 8th September 2009: ...Referring again to the principle that a specific law over-rides a general law... Richard Hills asks: Such as Herman De Wael's suggestion that the specific Law 20F5(a) over-rides every other 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 09:48:52 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:48:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ case 6 Message-ID: It seems to me the AC got their decision here the wrong way around. L82C say that both sides should be treated as non-offending sides after a TD error. Thus, IMO EW should receive +500 for 3H-5 and NS -130 for 3D+1. The outcome would of course be exactly the same, though, after averaging the IMP score on the board. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 28 11:24:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:24:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net><001501ca3c43$0c9dbd20$0302a8c0@Mildred><27ECD87ED25744A781CF2A0564925F52@MARVLAPTOP><002601ca3e94$8c9e58b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <612F8539E872459D802D90CDDFE65A63@MARVLAPTOP> <001501ca3f5a$cd4b2160$0302a8c0@Mildred><4ABF50E0.80103@yahoo.co.uk> <4AC008C9.9090308@nifty.com> Message-ID: <001201ca401d$7aa0aca0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 1:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws > Are you sure you don't mean bated breath? Or has he been swallowing > worms lately? :-) > -Bob > +=+ He's hooked on it. +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Sep 28 19:55:31 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:55:31 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <694eadd40909272040o159b0409gde360b6c355d233e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: From: "Adam Wildavsky" > ACBL committees do not ignore the TD's ruling, nor his fact > finding. At > present they do make their own rulings, rather than presuming the > TD's > ruling is correct per the WBF Code of Practice. This does not make > as big a > difference as one might think. In any case there is nothing in our > regulations suggesting that we can or should ignore the TD's > observations. > In fact we usually give them great weight. > Does the TD attend the AC meeting, as required by the ACBL's Handbook for Appeals Committees, 2004? Excerpts: ########## In the interest of efficiency, the Tournament Director normally testifies first. He or she should give a summary of the facts and issues, recite the pertinent law and regulations, and describe the available sanctions. The Tournament Director should inform the committee when bridge judgment is not relevant by showing a copy of the applicable law or regulation. After responding to any questions from committee members and parties, the Tournament Director may withdraw. ...if the committee finds the same facts and bridge judgment as the Tournament Director, it must make the same ruling. ############ Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 28 23:16:04 2009 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:16:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: [Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier] We are disappointing 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... [Nigel] IMO Jean is right. It would help to create a level playing field if the rules about bidding boxes, screens, convention cards, alerting and so on were part of the law-book. At the very least it would provide a default set of rules for most NBOs, even if a few Bolshy local jurisdiction insisted on idiosyncratic variations. [S. Rohan] I believe that this is the wrong approach. The Laws should be absolute and not include optional default regulations. It is bad enough that some NBOs think the Laws are optional now! The WBF has a set of regulations that includes everything listed above. It is not part of the Laws, so it can be adapted to new technology or changed when a better practice is identified. The WBF regulations are a perfect default; NBOs can use them in their entirety or alter them to fit their own circumstances, or even the constraints of particular events. Why is this not enough for some posters? From adam at tameware.com Tue Sep 29 06:16:35 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:16:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ case 15 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40909272040o159b0409gde360b6c355d233e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40909282116n759b318eue4c249ff97f76894@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > Does the TD attend the AC meeting, as required by the ACBL's > Handbook for Appeals Committees, 2004? > A TD attends the AC meeting. At each NABC a handful of TDs are assigned to screen cases and present them to ACs. They get the facts from the table TD. The AC can ask to speak to the table TD if the committee has a question for him that is not addressed on the appeal form and cannot be answered by the TD who presents the case. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090929/2815b6fc/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 29 09:21:06 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:21:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: References: <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > [S. Rohan] > > I believe that this is the wrong approach. The Laws should be absolute and > not include optional default regulations. It is bad enough that some NBOs > think the Laws are optional now! > > The WBF has a set of regulations that includes everything listed above. It > is not part of the Laws, so it can be adapted to new technology or changed > when a better practice is identified. The WBF regulations are a perfect > default; NBOs can use them in their entirety or alter them to fit their own > circumstances, or even the constraints of particular events. Why is this not > enough for some posters? > Let me tell you why this is not enough. When the BBF last wrote their system policy, we copied the WBF policy. So did the French and the Dutch. Sadly, we three did it at different times, and copied with some free will. And the result is that the three policies are slightly different. If OTOH the WBF would write a default system policy, we could all simply refer to that one. Of course that would mean that the WBF would need to put a little more thought in its publication, and not just write a policy for one tournament each time. Maybe this could not work for system policies - it certainly cannot for an alert procedure. But for bidding box regulations and screen regulations, I see no reason whatsoever why they have not been included into the 2007 lawbook. They have matured and need not be different in any part of the world or in any year. And yes, some bolshy NBOs can opt out of those regulations, if they so wish. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 29 11:09:46 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:09:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Minutes from Sao Payulo Message-ID: <001201ca40e4$990a9850$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> I don't think the law book can contain system regulations or alert procedures. These depend too much on local preferences, and on the strength of the field in an individual contest. Bidding with bidding boxes should be covered by the law book; especially as this has UI implications. Regulations for screens contain items such as how much extra time is added because screens are in place. That seems unsuitable for a law book. I also see no reason why it should matter to the law book which player operates the screen etc. Thomas Herman De Wael wrote: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > > > [S. Rohan] > > > > I believe that this is the wrong approach. The Laws should be absolute and > > > not include optional default regulations. It is bad enough that some NBOs > > > think the Laws are optional now! > > > > The WBF has a set of regulations that includes everything listed above. It > > > is not part of the Laws, so it can be adapted to new technology or changed > > > when a better practice is identified. The WBF regulations are a perfect > > default; NBOs can use them in their entirety or alter them to fit their > own > > circumstances, or even the constraints of particular events. Why is this > not > > enough for some posters? > > > > Let me tell you why this is not enough. > When the BBF last wrote their system policy, we copied the WBF policy. > So did the French and the Dutch. > Sadly, we three did it at different times, and copied with some free > will. And the result is that the three policies are slightly different. > > If OTOH the WBF would write a default system policy, we could all simply > refer to that one. Of course that would mean that the WBF would need to > put a little more thought in its publication, and not just write a > policy for one tournament each time. > > Maybe this could not work for system policies - it certainly cannot for > an alert procedure. But for bidding box regulations and screen > regulations, I see no reason whatsoever why they have not been included > into the 2007 lawbook. They have matured and need not be different in > any part of the world or in any year. > > And yes, some bolshy NBOs can opt out of those regulations, if they so > wish. > > Herman. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > 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 Tue Sep 29 16:30:51 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:30:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <4AC1B562.2040601@skynet.be> <4AB9E922.60400@ffbridge.net> <4ABAAC2A.6070309@yahoo.co.uk> <23649376.1254232839108.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4AC21A1B.4010508@skynet.be> Thomas has a few good points and a few incorrect ones: Thomas Dehn wrote: > I don't think the law book can contain system regulations > or alert procedures. These depend too much on local > preferences, and on the strength of the field > in an individual contest. Absolutely OK about alerts; not so sure about system classifications. > > Bidding with bidding boxes should be covered > by the law book; especially as this has UI > implications. > 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. > Regulations for screens contain items such > as how much extra time is added because > screens are in place. That seems unsuitable > for a law book. I also see no reason why > it should matter to the law book which > player operates the screen etc. > Maybe you are right, but then it does not matter equally if east or west sits to the left, or if the bidding and play goes clockwise or counterclockwise. Yet all those are in the book. Time regulations have no place in screen regulations, they can easily be put in the time section of the tournament in question. OTOH, there are about six pages of changes to the laws when screens are in place. That belongs in the lawbook, certainly! Herman. > > Thomas > > > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> [S. Rohan] >>> >>> I believe that this is the wrong approach. The Laws should be absolute and >>> not include optional default regulations. It is bad enough that some NBOs >>> think the Laws are optional now! >>> >>> The WBF has a set of regulations that includes everything listed above. It >>> is not part of the Laws, so it can be adapted to new technology or changed >>> when a better practice is identified. The WBF regulations are a perfect >>> default; NBOs can use them in their entirety or alter them to fit their >> own >>> circumstances, or even the constraints of particular events. Why is this >> not >>> enough for some posters? >>> >> Let me tell you why this is not enough. >> When the BBF last wrote their system policy, we copied the WBF policy. >> So did the French and the Dutch. >> Sadly, we three did it at different times, and copied with some free >> will. And the result is that the three policies are slightly different. >> >> If OTOH the WBF would write a default system policy, we could all simply >> refer to that one. Of course that would mean that the WBF would need to >> put a little more thought in its publication, and not just write a >> policy for one tournament each time. >> >> Maybe this could not work for system policies - it certainly cannot for >> an alert procedure. But for bidding box regulations and screen >> regulations, I see no reason whatsoever why they have not been included >> into the 2007 lawbook. They have matured and need not be different in >> any part of the world or in any year. >> >> And yes, some bolshy NBOs can opt out of those regulations, if they so >> wish. >> >> Herman. >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 29 18:19:30 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:19:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <4AC21A1B.4010508@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> Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:30:51 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Thomas has a few good points and a few incorrect ones: > > Thomas Dehn wrote: >> I don't think the law book can contain system regulations >> or alert procedures. These depend too much on local >> preferences, and on the strength of the field >> in an individual contest. > > Absolutely OK about alerts; not so sure about system classifications. > >> >> Bidding with bidding boxes should be covered >> by the law book; especially as this has UI >> implications. >> > > 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. > >> Regulations for screens contain items such >> as how much extra time is added because >> screens are in place. That seems unsuitable >> for a law book. I also see no reason why >> it should matter to the law book which >> player operates the screen etc. >> > > Maybe you are right, but then it does not matter equally if east or west > sits to the left, or if the bidding and play goes clockwise or > counterclockwise. Yet all those are in the book. > Time regulations have no place in screen regulations, they can easily be > put in the time section of the tournament in question. > > OTOH, there are about six pages of changes to the laws when screens are > in place. That belongs in the lawbook, certainly! > > Herman. > > >> >> Thomas >> >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >>> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>> [S. Rohan] >>>> >>>> I believe that this is the wrong approach. The Laws should be >>>> absolute and >>>> not include optional default regulations. It is bad enough that some >>>> NBOs >>>> think the Laws are optional now! >>>> >>>> The WBF has a set of regulations that includes everything listed >>>> above. It >>>> is not part of the Laws, so it can be adapted to new technology or >>>> changed >>>> when a better practice is identified. The WBF regulations are a >>>> perfect >>>> default; NBOs can use them in their entirety or alter them to fit >>>> their >>> own >>>> circumstances, or even the constraints of particular events. Why is >>>> this >>> not >>>> enough for some posters? >>>> >>> Let me tell you why this is not enough. >>> When the BBF last wrote their system policy, we copied the WBF policy. >>> So did the French and the Dutch. >>> Sadly, we three did it at different times, and copied with some free >>> will. And the result is that the three policies are slightly different. >>> >>> If OTOH the WBF would write a default system policy, we could all >>> simply >>> refer to that one. Of course that would mean that the WBF would need to >>> put a little more thought in its publication, and not just write a >>> policy for one tournament each time. >>> >>> Maybe this could not work for system policies - it certainly cannot for >>> an alert procedure. But for bidding box regulations and screen >>> regulations, I see no reason whatsoever why they have not been included >>> into the 2007 lawbook. They have matured and need not be different in >>> any part of the world or in any year. >>> >>> And yes, some bolshy NBOs can opt out of those regulations, if they so >>> wish. >>> >>> Herman. >>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >> >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 29 19:00:55 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:00:55 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appea Committee Procedures References: <694eadd40909272040o159b0409gde360b6c355d233e@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909282116n759b318eue4c249ff97f76894@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A124E72A70346F7B0704CB7EC8FC60F@MARVLAPTOP> Adam wrote: >> > > A TD attends the AC meeting. At each NABC a handful of TDs are > assigned to > screen cases and present them to ACs. They get the facts from the > table TD. > The AC can ask to speak to the table TD if the committee has a > question for > him that is not addressed on the appeal form and cannot be > answered by the > TD who presents the case. Not in compliance, but very reasonable at an NABC where ACs meet late at night and TDs are very busy. You should get the regulation changed to agree with this procedure. I have this belief that laws and regulations should be followed exactly, getting them changed if that is not feasible. I realize that makes me a bore to many, but I can't help myself. >From what I have seen, ACBL Regional Championships have no problem with the regulation. The AC and TD involved sit at a table to one side of the playing area shortly after the scores are posted for the session, and treat with an appeal expeditiously and fairly. Those appointed as members of the ad hoc AC are knowledgeable and responsible players who are not beholden to the DIC who appoints them. And they don't get any perks for their work, unlike the NABC AC, who all get free plays I believe. Its leaders get a hotel room, per diem at the TD rate, and free plays. But they work hard, I realize. Marv From blml at arcor.de Tue Sep 29 19:53:50 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:53:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws Message-ID: <17474291.1254246830092.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:30:51 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > > Thomas has a few good points and a few incorrect ones: > > > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> I don't think the law book can contain system regulations > >> or alert procedures. These depend too much on local > >> preferences, and on the strength of the field > >> in an individual contest. > > > > Absolutely OK about alerts; not so sure about system classifications. > > > >> > >> Bidding with bidding boxes should be covered > >> by the law book; especially as this has UI > >> implications. > >> > > > > 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. Goes further than that. If a player reaches into the back of the bidding box where the 1C to 7NT cards are, can he then still make a bid from the front section of the bidding box, where the pass and double cards are? What if this happens out of rotation? Do L29ff. apply even though no actual call was made out of rotation? Bidding cards are missing in a bidding box, or missorted. A player thus bids 2H instead of 2S. What happens now? Simply L25A, or maybe not because the player did not check his bidding box, or even messed it up himself?? After two passes, the 3rd player in rotation mistakenly assumes the auction has ended, and puts away his bidding cards, but does not actually put a pass on the tables. Is that a pass? That and dozens similar scenarios should be covered by the law book. It should not be handled inconsistently across the world. 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 tedying at yahoo.com Tue Sep 29 20:17:37 2009 From: tedying at yahoo.com (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [BLML] Appea Committee Procedures In-Reply-To: <4A124E72A70346F7B0704CB7EC8FC60F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <694eadd40909272040o159b0409gde360b6c355d233e@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909282116n759b318eue4c249ff97f76894@mail.gmail.com> <4A124E72A70346F7B0704CB7EC8FC60F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <276000.41865.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ________________________________ > From: Marvin L French > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:00:55 PM > Subject: [BLML] Appea Committee Procedures > > Adam wrote: > > > > > > A TD attends the AC meeting. At each NABC a handful of TDs are > > assigned to > > screen cases and present them to ACs. They get the facts from the > > table TD. > > The AC can ask to speak to the table TD if the committee has a > > question for > > him that is not addressed on the appeal form and cannot be > > answered by the > > TD who presents the case. > > Not in compliance, but very reasonable at an NABC where ACs meet > late at night and TDs are very busy. You should get the regulation > changed to agree with this procedure. > > I have this belief that laws and regulations should be followed > exactly, getting them changed if that is not feasible. I realize > that makes me a bore to many, but I can't help myself. > >From what I have seen, ACBL Regional Championships have no problem > with the regulation. The AC and TD involved sit at a table to one > side of the playing area shortly after the scores are posted for the > session, and treat with an appeal expeditiously and fairly. Those > appointed as members of the ad hoc AC are knowledgeable and > responsible players who are not beholden to the DIC who appoints > them. And they don't get any perks for their work, unlike the NABC > AC, who all get free plays I believe. Its leaders get a hotel room, > per diem at the TD rate, and free plays. But they work hard, I > realize. Marv I find it rather disturbing that many people on the laws committees both at the WBF and the ACBL level only seem to write for the major tournaments. The laws are promulgated to cover all of tournament bridge from the World level down to the club level. Just because the procedure of table TDs and appeals TD is used at the national and international level does not mean that this should become the standard. I run a 50-60 table club game every week that is the equivalent of a large sectional tournament. I have appeals in general about once/month. We usually use the same procedure outlined for regionals. We pick volunteer players to sit on ACs who get no perks. The table TD reports to the AC. I think the instructions in TFLB match what we actually do. To change them to reflect what only happens at the national and world level, would be inappropriate. The national and world level is only a small percentage of the duplicate bridge that is played on a regular basis. The laws should cover all events and then a special set of laws or an addendum should be added to cover that only occurs at major tournaments. That would be far more appropriate for a set of laws that is supposed to govern bridge at all levels. -Ted. From blml at arcor.de Tue Sep 29 21:01:37 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:01:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Appea Committee Procedures In-Reply-To: <4A124E72A70346F7B0704CB7EC8FC60F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4A124E72A70346F7B0704CB7EC8FC60F@MARVLAPTOP> <694eadd40909272040o159b0409gde360b6c355d233e@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40909282116n759b318eue4c249ff97f76894@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22654660.1254250897790.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Marvin L French wrote: > Adam wrote: > >> > > > > A TD attends the AC meeting. At each NABC a handful of TDs are > > assigned to > > screen cases and present them to ACs. They get the facts from the > > table TD. > > The AC can ask to speak to the table TD if the committee has a > > question for > > him that is not addressed on the appeal form and cannot be > > answered by the > > TD who presents the case. > > Not in compliance, but very reasonable at an NABC where ACs meet > late at night and TDs are very busy. You should get the regulation > changed to agree with this procedure. Those late at night AC meetings are bad for everybody, not just for TDs. If a player attended an AC meeting until 1:30 am, either as a member of the AC or because of an appeal involving him, that player might be at a disadvantage the next day. 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 Arbhuston at aol.com Tue Sep 29 21:54:45 2009 From: Arbhuston at aol.com (Arbhuston at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:54:45 EDT Subject: [BLML] Appea Committee Procedures Message-ID: Just to set the record straight, I thought I would respond to the issue of "perks". I have served on the NAC for almost forty years and only two or three times did I receive as much as a single-session entry for service - in those cases it was because the hearing and deliberation took so long. The standard now is that those who serve are given $10 for their service per case on which they serve. If they appear to perform committee duty and are not assigned a case, then they receive nothing at all. Other than a soft drink or a bottle of water, that is the only recompense for the people serving. The Chairman is given a hotel room, a per diem, and travel expenses to and from the tournament. He does not receive free plays. The recompense that Adam gets probably wouldn't pay for one tenth of the value of his time in the open market. If these compensations somehow seem to you to create a sense of obligation by committee members to the ACBL, I will tell you that in reality the paucity of the recompense probably does the reverse more. I would also like to mention that in most tournaments I have attended in the recent past (5 years or so), the DIC does not choose the composition of the committee, a District official does. This procedure removes most of the stigma that might go with the DIC doing it. Michael Huston -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090929/78fd584b/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 29 22:40:06 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:40:06 -0400 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> Message-ID: <59F951AD-724C-4F21-8B05-73D82E782D38@starpower.net> 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! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 30 03:06:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:06:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Parachutist at 7NT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: 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? Richard Hills, 30th September 2009, 2007 Lawbook answer: The 2007 Law 22B1 clearly proves that I have illegally exposed 13 cards during the auction period, but the 2007 Law 24 prologue also clearly proves that declarer can do so without rectification. However, if I was TD I would give myself a PP under Law 90A: "...violates correct procedure...". However, if I was DIC I would cancel my TD's PP under Law 90B7: "...errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant", since the error in procedure was so trivial that an adjusted score was not required (indeed, the chances of a slow play artificial adjusted score on a subsequent board were reduced). 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 Wed Sep 30 04:11:20 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:11:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 3 Message-ID: W N E S 2D X P 2H P 4H AP 2D was not alerted, and North doubled with QJ652 AKJ2 A QJ6 based on this MI; he would have bid 2NT with correct information (12-15 HCP, both majors). 2NT is down one, and 4H went down three. The TD ruled that North's 4H bid broke the connection between the infraction and the bad result, and ruled -300/+300 with a procedural penalty to E-W for failure to alert. Both halves of this ruling are wrong. If North's bid broke the connection, E-W should still get their +100, rather than the table result of +300 with a procedural penalty. And North's bid didn't break the entire connection because his normal bid of 3H would still leave him with -200, worse than he would have had without the infraction (and already a near-bottom). However, I would argue that South broke the connection. Holding T8 875 KQT97 T53, South should have left the double of 2D in (whether he was properly informed or not about the West hand), which would probably have been +500. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Sep 30 04:25:33 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:25:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 6 and L82C Message-ID: In this case, North wanted to change a call (bidding 2C in response to 1H, then realizing it was Drury), and the TD ruled (incorrectly) that it was a mechanical error and allowed a change of call. L82C was applied incorrectly. First (as was already discussed), both sides were treated as offending rather than both as non-offending; this made no difference in a KO. In addition, the E/W ruling was the table score. The table result would not have happened without the TD error; North would have been required to let his original call stand (with UI to South). Five players polled said that N/S would have reached 3C, four said 3H, and one said 4H. Therefore, 3C and 3H are both likely results, but 3D by West (the table result) is not. The result should have been 3C down one for -100 to N/S (most favorable likely result, treating N/S as non-offending), 3H down five for +500 to E/W. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Sep 30 04:40:51 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:40:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 10: what is a BIT? Message-ID: 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.) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 30 08:42:44 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:42:44 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appea Committee Procedures References: Message-ID: <8E0DBB199AEF490DB6BF8056353B87EB@MARVLAPTOP> Michael Huston writes: > Just to set the record straight, I thought I would respond to the > issue of > "perks". I have served on the NAC for almost forty years and only > two or > three times did I receive as much as a single-session entry for > service - in > those cases it was because the hearing and deliberation took so > long. The > standard now is that those who serve are given $10 for their > service per > case on which they serve. If they appear to perform committee > duty and are > not assigned a case, then they receive nothing at all. Other > than a soft > drink or a bottle of water, that is the only recompense for the > people > serving. $10 is much less than a free play at an NABC session, and well-deserved because of the late hours when ACs are held. > The Chairman is given a hotel room, a per diem, and travel > expenses to > and from the tournament. He does not receive free plays. >From the Management Report on Remuneration of NABC Volunteers, in regard to the NABC Appeals Committee: "The committee chairman and the two assistant chairmen get a room at the host hotel and per diem for the duration of the NABC. Free plays are given to the co-chairmen." Got that from the ACBL web site. I don't know how many people that covers, as I can't find the NAC organizational structure. Adam? > The recompense > that Adam gets probably wouldn't pay for one tenth of the value of > his time > in the open market. If these compensations somehow seem to you to > create > a sense of obligation by committee members to the ACBL, I will > tell you > that in reality the paucity of the recompense probably does the > reverse more. Do other countries have better compensation for ACs at national championships? Let's hear from you. Maybe we can get the ACBL's "paucity" increased if it is out of line with the rest of the world. > > I would also like to mention that in most tournaments I have > attended in > the recent past (5 years or so), the DIC does not choose the > composition of > the committee, a District official does. This procedure removes > most of > the stigma that might go with the DIC doing it. A doubtful choice, giving a bureaucrat that task. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 30 10:11:11 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:11:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Appea Committee Procedures References: <8E0DBB199AEF490DB6BF8056353B87EB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001301ca41a6$e18a8a50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appea Committee Procedures > A doubtful choice, giving a bureaucrat that task. > +=+ You bring in government officials to do the job? And what a surprise 'bureaucrat' is with Kojak chiding me regularly for wasting typeface in my English English spellings. I wonder how his knee is holding up? ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 30 10:20:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:20:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 10: what is a BIT? References: Message-ID: <001401ca41a6$e2684020$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:40 AM Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 10: what is a BIT? >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? +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 30 12:27:56 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:27:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <59F951AD-724C-4F21-8B05-73D82E782D38@starpower.net> 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> Message-ID: <4AC332AC.9000304@skynet.be> 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. > > Eric Landau From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 30 12:31:30 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:31:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Parachutist at 7NT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AC33382.5030202@skynet.be> By showing his cards during the bidding period, Richard deprived his partner of the chance to redouble, should opponents wish to double due to a piece of misinformation. Herman :) richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 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? > > Richard Hills, 30th September 2009, 2007 Lawbook answer: > > The 2007 Law 22B1 clearly proves that I have illegally exposed 13 > cards during the auction period, but the 2007 Law 24 prologue also > clearly proves that declarer can do so without rectification. > > However, if I was TD I would give myself a PP under Law 90A: > > "...violates correct procedure...". > > However, if I was DIC I would cancel my TD's PP under Law 90B7: > > "...errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's > hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score > for any contestant", > > since the error in procedure was so trivial that an adjusted score > was not required (indeed, the chances of a slow play artificial > adjusted score on a subsequent board were reduced). > > > 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 Frances.Hinden at Shell.com Wed Sep 30 14:35:44 2009 From: Frances.Hinden at Shell.com (Frances.Hinden at Shell.com) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:35:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appea Committee Procedures Message-ID: <82271AF113EB834CA99F1A459D025C5602ABE7DE@amsdc1-s-02346.europe.shell.com> > Do other countries have better compensation for ACs at national championships? Let's hear from you. Maybe we can get the ACBL's "paucity" increased if it is out of line with the rest of the world. In England there are different models depending on the type of event. For the big open-to-everyone congresses, a designated "Appeals Chairman" is selected/volunteered in advance (more than one for the biggest events) who is obligated to give advice on rulings/appeals if asked and chair any ACs. For that they receive half-price entry (worth about ?15/day), but nothing towards expenses as they are already playing in the event. Other members of ACs are asked to take part at the time and receive nothing other than thanks. For national finals or similar where there are assumed to be a number of suitable people playing anyway the TD chooses whether to put together a committee from suitable disinterested parties present (if they exist), or to telephone a member of the panel of referees. No compensation for either. The obvious difference from the first case is that if you are asked to chair an appeal here you can say 'no' if it is inconvenient; if you have accepted half price entry to be the designated chairman, you can't say 'no' unless there is a conflict of interest. For some events where it's thought likely that there won't be suitable people on site a telephone referee is sorted out to be available in advance. No compensation. For matches played privately at people's houses, if there is an appeal, either the secretary of the L&E selects one to email one from his list or the two captains agree on a suitable referee and phone him/her. No compensation. For a very small (and decreasing) number of prestigious events a non-playing referee is appointed to turn up to the event, sit around doing nothing for most of it, and hear any appeals. For this they get paid travel expenses plus ?50/day. This generally only happens at trials, and is now very infrequent as it is difficult to find suitable people prepared to waste a weekend sitting around, and anyway appeals at these events are very rare. It's possible the EBU would also repay some of my rulings-related telephone calls if I tried to claim them, I've never bothered to try. Frances Hinden Email: Frances.Hinden at shell.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090930/41ebc009/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 30 14:56:48 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:56:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <17474291.1254246830092.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <001b01ca41cd$7dc9d1c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws After two passes, the 3rd player in rotation mistakenly assumes the auction has ended, and puts away his bidding cards, but does not actually put a pass on the tables. Is that a pass? That and dozens similar scenarios should be covered by the law book. It should not be handled inconsistently across the world. +=+ 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. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 30 15:24:28 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:24:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <17474291.1254246830092.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> References: <17474291.1254246830092.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <6C3F4708-760A-4156-8BD9-545C3289C06D@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: > >> 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. > > Bidding cards are missing in a bidding box, or missorted. > A player thus bids 2H instead of 2S. What happens now? > Simply L25A, or maybe not because the player did not check his > bidding box, or even messed it up himself?? This is the rationale for the ACBL's approach, which avoids the question. You take a bid card from the box, examine its face, then either play it irrevocably or return it to the box without prejudice. > After two passes, the 3rd player in rotation mistakenly assumes > the auction has ended, and puts away his bidding cards, but > does not actually put a pass on the tables. Is that a pass? > > That and dozens similar scenarios should be covered by the law book. > It should not be handled inconsistently across the world. To me, this scenario suggests otherwise. In some bridge cultures, picking up one's bidding cards after two passes is universally recognized as an unambiguous third pass; in others it is, literally, an irregular action. One can make a case that there should be no local variation in such regulations whatsoever (although I wouldn't), but if we accept that there may be some need for differences in regulation from one jurisdiction to another -- a given, as far as our lawmakers are concerned -- I would think this would be one of those cases. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 30 15:49:45 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:49:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 29, 2009, at 10:11 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > W N E S > 2D X P 2H > P 4H AP > > 2D was not alerted, and North doubled with QJ652 AKJ2 A QJ6 based > on this MI; he > would have bid 2NT with correct information (12-15 HCP, both > majors). 2NT is > down one, and 4H went down three. > > The TD ruled that North's 4H bid broke the connection between the > infraction and > the bad result, and ruled -300/+300 with a procedural penalty to E- > W for failure > to alert. Both halves of this ruling are wrong. If North's bid > broke the > connection, E-W should still get their +100, rather than the table > result of > +300 with a procedural penalty. And North's bid didn't break the > entire > connection because his normal bid of 3H would still leave him with > -200, worse > than he would have had without the infraction (and already a near- > bottom). > > However, I would argue that South broke the connection. Holding T8 > 875 KQT97 > T53, South should have left the double of 2D in (whether he was > properly > informed or not about the West hand), which would probably have > been +500. Edgar Kaplan, who originated the principle of distinguishing consequent from merely subsequent damage, wrote, "The type of error that makes damage 'subsequent' can be seen in the examples...: a player doesn't see one of his cards; a player revokes; a defender on lead against six-notrump-doubled fails to lead one of his two aces -- glaring, foolish errors." IMHO, neither North's nor South's actions here come even close to meeting Mr. Kaplan's criterion for "breaking the connection". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 30 16:06:07 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:06:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 10: what is a BIT? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Wed Sep 30 16:13:54 2009 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:13:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeals committee Message-ID: In Sweden there is no way that a member of AC gets any compensation at any level. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090930/8b522094/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 30 15:05:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:05:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Parachutist at 7NT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4AC33382.5030202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002701ca41da$33d20bc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> 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." >> +=+ I was a close catcher, suicide short leg. I hardly ever fielded in the deep. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 30 16:27:51 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:27:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Parachutist at 7NT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4AC33382.5030202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002801ca41da$34041840$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Parachutist at 7NT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > By showing his cards during the bidding period, Richard > deprived his partner of the chance to redouble, should > opponents wish to double due to a piece of misinformation. > Herman :) > +=+ Since defender was considering an opening lead I assume the auction had closed (Law 22A2). See WBFLC minutes 8 September 2009, item 12(a)*, and note in particular that it is the Director who must make the judgement and the reference to "the correct information (only)". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* (the committee determined that) "Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call "could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player". Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3." ] From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 30 17:03:15 2009 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:03:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <6C3F4708-760A-4156-8BD9-545C3289C06D@starpower.net> References: <6C3F4708-760A-4156-8BD9-545C3289C06D@starpower.net> <17474291.1254246830092.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <33406162.1254322995499.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 29, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Bidding cards are missing in a bidding box, or missorted. > > A player thus bids 2H instead of 2S. What happens now? > > Simply L25A, or maybe not because the player did not check his > > bidding box, or even messed it up himself?? > > This is the rationale for the ACBL's approach, which avoids the > question. You take a bid card from the box, examine its face, then > either play it irrevocably or return it to the box without prejudice. It might be the rationale, but it does not avoid the problem. In my experience, player's do not verify on every bid that they indeed picked the correct cards from the bidding box. It also introduces the problem Herman described earlier today. 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 30 19:15:36 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:15:36 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Washington Non-NABC+ Case 3 References: Message-ID: <13EDD6EEAAED46308D4BC7230FF1798C@MARVLAPTOP> From: "David Grabiner" >W N E S > 2D X P 2H > P 4H AP > > 2D was not alerted, and North doubled with QJ652 AKJ2 A QJ6 based > on this MI; he > would have bid 2NT with correct information (12-15 HCP, both > majors). 2NT is > down one, and 4H went down three. 4H went off three. The TD's ruling of +/-300 and a PP for E-W was changed on appeal to +/-100 and no PP. I was the South player. An example of a player stupidly giving self-damaging testimony. If she (not he) had kept her mouth shut, a pass might have been assumed in the score adjustment, leading to a good score for N-S. (East would have passed 2D, since it showed a balanced hand with 4-4 majors). Ron Gerard and I are probably the only ones in the world who feel that self-damaging statements by a non-offender should be ignored. Grattan: Can the possibility of a pass of 2D by North be considered in a score adjustment, despite what she said? > > Both halves of this ruling are wrong. If North's bid broke the > connection, E-W should still get their +100, rather than the table > result of > +300 with a procedural penalty. And North's bid didn't break the > entire > connection because his normal bid of 3H would still leave him > with -200, worse > than he would have had without the infraction (and already a > near-bottom). > > However, I would argue that South broke the connection. Holding > T8 875 KQT97 > T53, South should have left the double of 2D in (whether he was > properly > informed or not about the West hand), which would probably have > been +500. Grattan: Can this possibility be considered in a score adjustment? There is nothing in the Laws about "breaking the connection." There is reference to "serious error," but that has to be more than just poor judgment, and the level of player must be considered. North was a very weak player, obviously, so the 4H bid was not a "serious error" for her. "Level/Calibre of player" was declared pertinent in WBFLC minutes, 10 October 2008 and 8 September 2009. The ACBL LC neither confirms nor denies this interpretation, so maybe it doesn't apply in ACBL-land. The TD Panel decision seems right to me. The TD had it all wrong, of course. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 30 19:29:01 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:29:01 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appeals committee References: Message-ID: <0B8A23467DDB47F596BCCB54C8520B60@MARVLAPTOP> Hans-Olof Hallen writes: >In Sweden there is no way that a member of AC gets any compensation >at any level. The ACBL refers to such compensation under the heading "Remuneration for NABC Volunteers." Perhaps the word "volunteers" should be changed to "part-time workers." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 30 22:33:02 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:33:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <33406162.1254322995499.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <6C3F4708-760A-4156-8BD9-545C3289C06D@starpower.net> <17474291.1254246830092.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <33406162.1254322995499.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <5675730C-AA1F-4272-B00C-6E19E2F79EAE@starpower.net> On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> This is the rationale for the ACBL's approach, which avoids the >> question. You take a bid card from the box, examine its face, then >> either play it irrevocably or return it to the box without prejudice. > > It might be the rationale, but it does not avoid the problem. > In my experience, player's do not verify on every bid that > they indeed picked the correct cards from the bidding box. If it were a valid criticism of the sensibleness of a procedure that not everyone follows it, no solutions would ever avoid any problems. This procedure at least "avoids the problem" at those tables that do choose to follow it. It also provides a rationale for being rather rigorous in our acceptance of L25A claims, as it is impossible to make an unintended call if one follows the proper procedure in calling. So even if not everyone does it, it does make serious inroads into the original problem raised, which was the arguable overuse of L25A. > It also introduces the problem Herman described earlier today. In Herman's scenario, the problem was UI generated by an obvious show of uncertainty by the bidder, who happened on this particular occasion to use his handy bid box as a prop for his hystrionics. Absent his improper use of the bid box, he would presumably have merely made use of something else -- his tempo, his vocal inflection, his hair, whatever -- to express his uncertainty. If the "I" doesn't "derive[] from the legal calls and plays..." it is either "U" or it isn't, regardless of its means of transmission. The problem Herman describes was a problem of transmission of UI, not a problem of bid- box misuse. I'm 100% certain that nobody reading Herman's post missed the point that UI was being transmitted! Lest we forget, bid boxes were originally introduced to bridge for the specific purpose of reducing UI problems, since passing UI via bid-box manipulation is typically far more obvious than doing so via vocal intonations or mannerisms. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 30 23:22:30 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:22:30 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Editions of the 2007 Laws References: <17474291.1254246830092.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> <6C3F4708-760A-4156-8BD9-545C3289C06D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4ECFAC4ADDD9455384F1E326C1237443@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > In some bridge cultures, > picking up one's bidding cards after two passes is universally > recognized as an unambiguous third pass; in others it is, > literally, > an irregular action. One can make a case that there should be no > local variation in such regulations whatsoever (although I > wouldn't). There should merely be a law (not a regulation) that says you haven't called until you put a bid card on the table. Players would easily learn to comply. As I do now, feeling no inconvenience whatsoever. Bad habits are not always hard to overcome. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com